What Is Our Primary Calling?

What Is Our Primary Calling?

Mark 3:14 And he [Jesus] ordained twelve, that they may be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, …

Jesus chose his disciples not to send him to preach or to give them right away the authority to drive out demons but his first concern was for them TO BE WITH HIM. This is their “Primary Calling” as well as to all of us whom God has chosen in this generation. (D.S. John Manalo and Dr. Rivera, “Lesson 1: Personal Transformation and Our Primary Calling,”  United Methodist Church–Disciples Of Christ (UMC-DOC) Downloading Seminar Manual, p. 5.)

And so our primary calling as Christian disciples is to be with Christ: how do we go about doing that? Personal daily devotions with journaling? Being part of a small group? Going to church? Being involved in church activities and ministries? Are not all of these our own efforts, our own works? Does this not imply that we fulfill our primary calling to be with Christ by our own works?

Even though many people readily assume that "being with Jesus" merely means that we either do our daily devotions, attend a small group, go to church and be involved in "ministries", if our primary calling as disciples of Christ is to be with him, then as disciples of Christ should practice constant communion (that is receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion at least once a week) because as disciples of Christ we must always remember Christ according to how he himself said we should remember him and because our Lord Jesus is truly and really present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, constant communion fulfills our primary calling to be with Christ constantly.

We CanNOT Reach God by Our Own Efforts

Luke 18:9-14 Jesus also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

"But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

The UMC-DOC Downloading Manual rightly warns against a program focused and event oriented attitude which seems so prevalent in attempts at discipleship. People usually miss the point of doing daily devotions with journalling, small groups and church attendance that they think that these activities in themselves will bring us closer to God, closer to Christ. Discipleship should not be treated as a “church program”, or devotions, small group or church activities as “events” wherein God is automatically “there”.

Does "being with God" merely mean that we do our daily devotions? Pharisees were known for their intense devotions, and their “journalling” resulted in what is now known as the Talmud, and yet that did not ensure they were “being with God”.  Attending a small group? Surely where two or three are gathered in God’s name, God is there. Pharisees also did that, their small groups were known as “chaburoth”, but their small group fellowships did not really ensure they were“being with God”. What about going to church and be involved in "ministries"? Pharisees did these also, always at the Synagogue and Temple, involved in all the activities of the Jewish faith, yet they definitely were not “being with God”.

How then can we assume that merely doing devotions, being part of a small group, going to church and being active will enable us to “be with Christ” (not that there is anything wrong with these things, mind)?

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.”

Luke 6:46 [Jesus said,] “Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?”

1 Corinthians 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

No matter how much time one “sacrifices to God” setting time apart for daily devotions, small group, church activities and ministries, if one is not obeying Christ’s commands then its all for nought.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

If by “being with Christ” you MERELY mean doing daily devotions, doing your homework/journal, doing church activities and ministries, then you are doing it wrong. That is why the UMC-DOC Downloading Manual warns against seeing discipleship as a program of events.

Obeying the Commands of Our Lord Jesus Christ

John 14:23-24a Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. One who does not love me will not obey my teaching.”

If then "being with Jesus" does NOT merely mean that we either do our daily devotions, attend a small group, go to church “activities and ministries”, how then do we fulfill our primary calling as disciples of Christ is to be with him?  Christ tells us to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Disciples then should be taught to obey whatever Christ commanded. And Christ commanded that we should remember him through the breaking of bread and the cup of blessing.

That this is his command, appears from the words of the text, "Do this in remembrance of me:" … Perhaps you will say, "God does not command me to do this as often as I can:" That is, the words "as often as you can," are not added in this particular place. What then? Are we not to obey every command of God as often as we can? (John Wesley)

It follows that if we are not obliged to obey Christ’s command to remember him as often as we can through the Eucharist, then neither are we obliged to always love one another or to love our enemies always, nor are we obliged to love God with all our hearts, soul, and might always.

One could respond by saying, “Oh, I always remember Christ! The Lord’s Supper is just one of the many means I remember Christ, that is why I do not always have to eat and drink the Lord’s Supper because I already always remember him by various other means every day.”

Yes, that may be the case, that you remember Christ constantly by YOUR chosen means. Yet, consider what one is really saying: by saying that one’s own chosen means of remembering Christ is more relevant (and therefore better at regular and constant practice) than Christ’s chosen means for remembering him (which t best is only to be occasionally done) is like saying that one’s own will is more relevant than Christ’s will for us. In short, not Christ’s will be done, but our will be done.

But let us remember the main POINT of being a disciple: not our will be done, but God’s will be done. As disciples of Christ we must remember Christ according to how he himself said we should remember him, through consecrated bread and consecrated wine. This is the will of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, there is one major-MAJOR advantage that the Holy Eucharist has which the other means of grace has (whether instituted or personal) do NOT have: immediate personal contact with Christ.

Keeping In Touch With Christ, As In REALLY Touching Him!

Article XVIII—Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

The most important reason why disciples of Christ we should practice constant communion is because our Lord Jesus is truly and really present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, constant communion fulfills our primary calling to be with Christ constantly.

We may truly and really be in contact with our loved ones through the phone or through the internet (Skype, Facebook, etc.), but talking to your loved ones through chat is not the same as actually holding their hands. In short, while their presence via Skype or FB may be so very immediate as to seem as if they were really there, their presence is but virtual, not real. True, chatting online can be so meaningful to those who are separated by long disctances, yet who would choose online chatting with one’s friends and loved ones if one has the immediate opportunity to really with them in person?

While all the other means do truly establish communication with Christ, these do so only in the same sense a phone call or text message does or internet chatting. Personal devotions or small groups do have the immediate presence of Christ, but Christ’s real and true presence is found in the Holy Eucharist. This is exactly what the doctrine of the United Methodist Church is—we Methodists are supposed to believe in the real presence. In other words, THE LORD’S SUPPER IS NOT MERELY A SYMBOL!

Article of Religion 18 clearly states that “the bread which we break is a partaking [i.e., eating] of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking [i.e., drinking] of the blood of Christ”. There is no getting away from this!  In the Holy Eucharist, we are actually eating Christ’s flesh and actually drinking Christ’s blood.

Of course, we do NOT believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, wherein the nature (or substance) of bread and wine are changed into the nature/substance of Christ's body and blood and stops being bread and wine. We Methodists believe that in the Eucharist, the bread remains 100% bread and the wine 100% wine, yet at the same time they are 100% Christ's body and 100% Christ's blood. No transubstantiation has taken place, nor are the elements 50% bread/wine and 50% flesh/blood as is taught in the doctrine of Consubstantiation. Yes, how this is possible is a mystery (a holy mystery, in fact), yet it is true nonetheless, just as true as light being simultaneously particle and wave.

And yet some would object that our Lord Jesus is truly and really present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, citing the third part of Article 18, “The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.” And we Methodists agree that the consecrated bread is Christ’s spiritual body and the consecrated wine is Christ’s spiritual blood. This does not make Christ’s flesh and blood in the Eucharist any less real or literal. In fact, this part of the article actually reinforces the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Holy Eucharist.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

And so, the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist is Christ’s resurrected body and blood. What is present is not dead flesh and dead blood, but living flesh and living blood. At the same time, Christ’s resurrected body is not merely a spirit, i.e., a ghost, but a living and breathing being that can actually eat.

Luke 24:38-43  And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?  See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a ghost/spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish [and a honeycomb], and he took it and ate before them.

If the living, resurrected Christ, whose resurrected body is now a spiritual body, and yet is still is not a mere disembodied spirit but can still eat food, then this same resurrected Christ can give his spiritual body and blood as food that can really and literally be eaten. And if in the sacrament of the Eucharist we can really eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood, then we can actually touch the living, resurrected Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion!

What Is Our Primary Calling? To Really Be With Christ!

So one can see that although many people readily assume that "being with Jesus" merely means that we either do our daily devotions, attend a small group, go to church and be involved in "ministries", if our primary calling as disciples of Christ is to be with him, then as disciples of Christ should practice constant communion for two main reasons. First, as disciples of Christ we must always remember Christ according to how he himself said we should remember him. But most importantly, because our Lord Jesus is truly and really present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, constant communion fulfills our primary calling to be with Christ constantly.

Personal devotions, journalling, small group, church activities and ministries do allow us to a) cultivate our relationship with Christ, b) abide in Christ in a way that produces fruit, c) make Christ the center of our lives, d) receive instruction from Christ daily, and e) establish a pattern that is reproducible. But only in a limited sense, just as phone calls, texts, memos, and internet chatting are limited in their potential to cultivate communication and relationships. Sooner or later, phone-pals must meet, texting give way to actual talking face to face, and internet chatting to actual dating and courtship.

In the same way, personal devotions, journaling, small group, and extra-church activities and ministries are intended to lead us to REALLY BE WITH CHRIST, as in truly with him in the Holy Eucharist. If any of these do not lead to a regular reception of Holy Communion, then they are worse than useless. Small group is done at least weekly—so too then should Holy Communion be received at least weekly. Personal devotions ideally ought to be done daily—so too then the ideal frequency of Holy Communion be also daily. In fact, if anything else should be gone, the Holy Eucharist MUST remain.

But, then again, SO WHAT? Why is the Lord’s Supper so very important? Because through the bread we break and partake of we become the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16) and through the cup of blessing we bless we receive remission of sins, that is, not only the forgiveness of our sins, but the eradicating of our sins as well. To have the Holy Eucharist once a month is like saying we are the body of Christ only once a month, and we receive remission of sins only once a month. While prayer can suffice to receive forgiveness of our sins, only through the blood of Christ can our sins be in remission.

No pastoral act is more central to the care of souls than the Supper where the resurrected Christ himself is present at the table. If all acts of pastoral care were stopped except Eucharist, the work of pastoral care would remain vital and significant. – Thomas C. Oden, Ministry Through Word and Sacrament (New York: Crossroad, 1989), p. 154.

The Holy Eucharist is sufficient in itself for nurture, outreach, witness and evangelism because Christ is there, really and truly present for us to touch, for us to taste the goodness of our God.

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND AND THE EUCHARIST

This essay was revised from my sermon preached on the 3rd of August 2014.

Disclaimer: I do NOT believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, wherein the nature (or substance) of bread and wine are changed into the nature/substance of Christ's body and blood and stops being bread and wine. Such a belief smacks of Docetism. I believe that in the Eucharist, the bread remains 100% bread and the wine 100% wine, yet at the same time they are 100% Christ's body and 100% Christ's blood. No transubstantiation has taken place, nor are the elements 50% bread/wine and 50% flesh/blood as is taught in the doctrine of consubstantiation.

THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND AND THE EUCHARIST

A Miracle of Multiplication, or a “Miracle” of “Sharing”?

Surely all those people who came to hear Jesus brought some food for their journey. They certainly wouldn’t have walked all that way without taking food for their trip. But it may be that none of them wanted to share what he had.

It may therefore be that Jesus, with his ability to draw the best from people, produced the five loaves and fish his disciples gave him, and simply began sharing it with those around him. Perhaps, seeing this, everyone who had something began doing the same, until eventually everyone was sharing what they were earlier hoarding. In the end, there was more than enough for everyone.

It may be that this is a miracle in which Jesus was able to change a group selfish people into a community of sharers. It may be that this story represents the biggest miracle of all—one that didn’t only change loaves and fishes, but the hearts of men and women.[1]

There are many that say that the miracle here is not a miracle of multiplication, but a miracle of “sharing”, but although it is alleged that the "miracle" in the feeding of the five thousand is merely the miracle of "sharing", (when they saw a little boy share his food, the rest of the people were shamed into sharing the food they hid for themselves,) we should consider the feeding of the five thousand not as a "miracle" of "sharing" but as a true literal event wherein five loaves and two fish literally were multiplied by Christ to feed more than five thousand for two main reasons.

First, a group of people cannot hide that much food that will leave left-overs in twelve baskets. If there was enough food to leave that many left-overs, then Christ and his disciples would not have been fooled into believing that the people had no food whatsoever. But most importantly, all four Gospel accounts tell us that the people had NO FOOD, and that is why Christ HAD to feed them. Let us remember that the people to whome Christ preached were mostly POOR who had no food to bring even if they wanted to. Those of us who had to work with the poor and under-privileged know for a fact that whether urban poor or rural folk they had to be fed when they come to church.

There is no suggestion WHATSOEVER in any of the four Gospels that the people actually hid their food and were moved to share because a little boy shared his. This assumes that the Gospel writers were not at all honest in describing the event. Now unless one is a dedicated liberal theologian, there would be no problem regarding the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts. What bugs me are people who supposedly believe in the divine inspiration of the Gospels and yet hold on to a naturalistic explanation, or rather, explaining away of a miracle.

In the same way, many say that the Sacrament of Holy Communion merely as a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s work on the cross, but even though it is alleged that the "ordinance" of Holy Communion is merely a symbol wherein we remember what Christ did for us, (and since we can remember Christ by any means, Holy Communion is perceived as not really necessary,) we must realize that “those seeking to live as Christian disciples have constant need of the nourishment and sustenance made available through both the Word and the sacrament of Holy Communion,” and thus, “congregations of The United Methodist Church” should “move toward a richer sacramental life, including weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the services on the Lord’s Day, as advocated by the general orders of Sunday worship in The United Methodist Hymnal and The United Methodist Book of Worship” because the apostle S. Paul that it is through the breaking of bread and the partaking thereof that unites us in the body of Christ and the cup of blessing is how the blood of Christ is conveyed to believers. This is important because S. Paul directly relates to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ himself when he said that “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day” (S. John 6:54).[2]

In other words, once saved is NOT always saved, and salvation has to be maintained, not by our own works but by grace through faith conveyed by the means of grace, of which the sacrament of Holy Communion is the chief.

Remembering the Work of Christ Apart From the Eucharist

Of course, many even in the United Methodist Church think that Holy Communion is but just a symbol because they take in isolation Christ’s words, “Do this in remembrance of me” and so for many of them that is the most important part, not the breaking of bread and the blessing of wine. And since one can remember or be reminded of Christ and his work on the cross even without bread and wine, then Holy Communion is not really that essential. Once a month is already perceived as so frequent (even too frequent), some even saying that Holy Communion should only be done once a year every Holy Thursday. I am well aware of this argument as I used to hold this very notion, even when I finished my Master of Divinity thesis and even suggested a liturgy applicable only every Maundy Thursday.

Then there is that notion that S. John 6:53ff do not refer at all to the elements of Holy Communion but to the written Word of God, i.e., the Holy Scriptures.

Christ, the true bread, only gives life, which is conveyed by the word, and made effectual by the Spirit: … The "flesh" and "blood" of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it: and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten: but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord's supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; … But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: … and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them: without this there, is no evidence of life in them; … Now, though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood, and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold, and feeds upon; yet it is by faith the right is claimed; and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection.[3]

In short, eating flesh of Christ and drinking his blood means no more than believing that Christ came in the flesh and trusting in the atoning work of Christ’s death. Thus, the “ordinance” of the Lord’s Table is not really necessary, but is just a symbol of one’s faith in the incarnate Word of God and trust in Christ’s atoning death. The appeal of this notion to intellectuals, individualists and those dismayed by the perceived corruption of the organized church is that it makes salvation directly available (without the mediation of an organization, i.e., the Church) according to one’s understanding and acceptance of the “knowledge” of Christ.

These same intellectual individualists reject the notion that any saving grace can be conveyed at all by physical means, whether through baptismal water or the elements of bread and wine. Grace is held to be conveyed solely by the mental process of faith, with the “ordinances” of Baptism and the Lord’s Table symbols of spiritual realities.

The Theologically Liberal Interpretations of “Conservative Evangelicals”

A theology which denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and affections and thought have been fastened for nearly two millennia - which either denies the miraculous altogether or, more strangely, after swallowing the camel of the Resurrection strains at such gnats as the feeding of the multitudes - if offered to the uneducated man can produce only one or other of two effects. It will make him a Roman Catholic or an atheist.

I find in these theologians a constant use of the principle that the miraculous does not occur.[4]

Truly, how weird is it when one accepts that Christ did truly die, rise to life, and ascend into heaven, and NOT believe that Christ was born of a virgin, transformed water into wine, multiplied five loaves to feed more than five thousand, walked on water, and is more than capable of giving his own flesh and blood for people to eat.

So some argue that it is contrary to nature for bread to be so multiplied that five loaves can feed five hundred, so others argue that it is contrary to nature for Christ’s flesh and blood occupy many places at the same time. For they say that is to attribute divine characteristics to Christ’s human nature, which though united with his divine nature is entirely differentiated. So, it is not “natural” for human flesh and blood to be present in bread and wine: neither is it “natural” for a human body to walk on water or to raise to life after it had been killed.

Christ’s human body even before his death was already capable of things normally considered impossible: why is it so hard to believe that the same Christ who multiplied five loaves cannot in the same way multiply his own flesh and blood and give them to be eaten as bread and wine? Unless one does not believe the feeding of the five thousand was a miracle of multiplication but a “miracle[?] of ‘sharing’”. Alec Vidler said in one of his Windsor Sermons that “the Fourth gospel does not call [the feeding of the five thousand] a 'miracle' . . . but a ‘sign’. It should be read more as a parable than as a miracle.” If the Eucharist is similarly a sign, a symbol, is it then too a parable?

And this is what I find inconsistent from supposed conservative evangelicals who believe in the virgin birth, turning water into wine, and the multiplication of the loaves, yet when confronted with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” interpret them like any liberal theologian—with rationalistic naturalism and not with Scripture.

When we do turn to Scripture to answer the question, “How can Christ give us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink?” we are confronted with the words of the apostle S. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16,

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

So, how do we eat Christ’s flesh? Through the bread broken in remembrance of Christ. How do we drink Christ’s blood? Through the cup of blessing in remembrance of Christ. These are THE Scriptural answers. S. John 6:53-54 is interpreted in the light of 1 Corinthians 10:16. That’s the only interpretation available in Scripture.

“But when Christ said those words, the Lord’s Supper was not yet instituted, and so it is out of context to relate these words to the Lord’s Supper.” But how does one know that the words of 6:53ff does not constitute a prediction of the institution of the Lord’s Supper at the Last Supper? For if S. John 3:14-15 is an implicit prediction of the crucifixion of Christ, then 6:53ff is similarly an implicit prediction of the Lord’s Supper.

Besides, Christ already, by the time he had said these words, already instituted the Eucharist—during the feeding of the five thousand when he gave thanks (eucharisteo) and multiplied the five loaves to feed more than five thousand when “the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was nigh.” What if the Lord’s Supper was instituted to remind his disciples of the institution of the Eucharist about a year or so before, and to have them remember what Christ said about his being the bread of life? Indeed, Christ’s words, “This is my body,” would have been the long awaited answer to the much debated question at Capernaum, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Trying To Be More Spiritual Than God

There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names—Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper. At least, those are the three ordinary methods.[5]

It is most important for us to realize that “those seeking to live as Christian disciples have constant need of the nourishment and sustenance made available through both the Word and the sacrament of Holy Communion,” and thus, weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper every Sunday at the least is not only desirable but necessary, because of the promise of Christ that “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day” (S. John 6:54).

But, as shown previously, this flies in the face of any naturalistic rationalism that supposed “evangelical conservatives” actually use in interpreting Scripture.

… nothing is more contrary to nature than to derive the spiritual and heavenly life of the soul from flesh, which received its origin from the earth, and was subjected to death, nothing more incredible than that things separated by the whole space between heaven and earth should, notwithstanding of the long distance, not only be connected, but united, so that souls receive aliment from the flesh of Christ.[6]

In other words, the only means of grace is the “spiritual” act of faith, i.e., the mental act of belief. But the only way one can arrive at this conclusion is to presuppose a sort of dualism wherein physical and spiritual matter are so utterly divorced.

… this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion. … There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.[7]

As offensive as it may sound to modern Pharisees that Christ uses physical matter like bread and wine to impart spiritual life into people, this is EXACTLY what Christ was saying explicitly, that “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day”. Taken at face value, Christ did say eternal life and the guarantee of being resurrected among the righteous is conveyed by the eating of Christ’s flesh and the drinking of his blood. There is no going around this unless one begs the question with theologically liberal presuppositions.

And even if the “flesh and blood” was not intended to be literal but symbolic—(despite the fact that Christ NEVER said, “those who symbolically eat my flesh and symbolically drink my blood”), the fact remains that eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood is necessary to receive eternal life.

And so, how do we “symbolically” eat Christ’s flesh and “symbolically” drink his blood? By knowing that Christ came in the flesh and knowing that he died to save sinners? Devils know that too, and they tremble, remaining devils still. By accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as personal savior? And how do we do that? By praying a sinners’ prayer and knowing that he died for you? Or, is reading the Bible every day how we eat Christ’s flesh? Already, the Scripture reading is called “our daily bread”: is praying therefore how we drink Christ’s blood? Or is blood another “symbol” of the Spirit?[8]

The Scriptures actually give us the answer: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” We eat Christ flesh through broken bread and we drink Christ’s blood through blessed wine. The Scriptures themselves offer no other explanation that what the apostle S. Paul already wrote. That is why the early New Testament Church celebrated the breaking of bread—the Eucharist—every day (Acts 2:42ff), because the hope of eternal life and assurance of forgiveness and salvation was and still is received through this sacrament.

Once Saved is NOT Always Saved: Why the Eucharist is Necessary

Your natural life is derived from your parents; that does not mean it will stay there if you do nothing about it. You can lose it by neglect, or you can drive it away by committing suicide. You have to feed it and look after it: but always remember you are not making it, you are only keeping up a life you got from someone else. In the same way a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own steam—he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have acquired by his own efforts. And that has practical consequences.[9]

And so, even if it is granted that the Eucharist is “just a symbol” it must be realized that “those seeking to live as Christian disciples have constant need of the nourishment and sustenance made available through both the Word and the sacrament of Holy Communion,” and thus, we should “move toward a richer sacramental life, including weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the services on the Lord’s Day” for two main points. First, our Lord Jesus Christ himself said that “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.” Secondly and significantly, the apostle Paul writes that the breaking of bread is the means we receive Christ’s flesh and the blessing of the cup of wine the means by which we receive the blood of Christ. In other words, whether real or symbolic, the sacrament of Holy Communion is a necessary means whereby we receive eternal life.

The grace of God given herein confirms to us the pardon of our sins and enables us to leave them. As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and the blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls: This gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord’s Supper; then we must never turn our backs on the feast which our Lord has prepared for us.[10]

The reason why constant communion is a necessary duty is because we humans cannot preserve our own eternal lives—Christ has to do it for us. We may have received eternal life the moment we believed, but we can lose that life eternal if we fail to maintain it, fail to feed it. And the means whereby the eternal lives given us is maintained is through the sacrament of Holy Communion.

If one rejects the notion that eternal life can be lost, then yes, Holy Communion is not only unnecessary but actually irrelevant, valuable only as a reminder of past events, a visual aid on the same level as a video of Jesus of Nazareth and The Passion of the Christ. In fact, maybe a movie about Christ is a better means of “remembering” Christ if the Eucharist is just a symbol and once saved is always saved.

However, if once saved is NOT always saved, and one can definitely lose the eternal life one has once gained, then the sacrament of Holy Communion is not only important, but absolutely essential to maintaining that eternal life which Christ gave to us on the cross and to progressing towards spiritual maturity.

Now, at this point one may ask that as long as grace is received in the Eucharist, does it matter whether Christ’s real flesh and real blood is really present in the elements of bread and wine. For even if they were mere symbols, and no real eating of Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood, as long as those who partake of it receive grace, right? That is like saying that the feeding of the five thousand needed not have been a miraculous multiplication of five loaves, but merely an act of sharing, which is in itself “a miracle in which Jesus was able to change a group selfish people into a community of sharers. It may be that this story represents the biggest miracle of all—one that didn’t only change loaves and fishes, but the hearts of men and women.” This explanation satisfies the naturalistic assumptions of this present age. But if the feeding of the five thousand was just about getting people to share their food, then it does not really deserve to be called a miracle, and the Gospels that record the event are less than honest, if not outright lies. In the same way, if bread and wine are just symbols, then there is no reason to suppose that these physical elements can really convey spiritual grace, unless one redefines grace as well.

Miracles have been redefined in this naturalistic world so as to utterly remove the supernatural and make them merely unusual yet natural events. In the same way, grace has been redefined not as spiritual energy but as an emotional high. Salvation is no longer the object of the Lord’s Supper, but entertainment.

However, if Christ can truly turn water into wine, and can miraculously feed five thousand with five loaves of bread, then this same Christ can convey to us his flesh and blood through the elements of bread and wine, so that eating his flesh and drinking his blood we may continue to have the eternal life Christ died to give to us.

“… when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being "in Christ" or of Christ being "in them," this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts—that we are. … It explains why this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion.” –C. S. Lewis

---

[1] “The Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Miracle of Sharing,” CATHOLIC WEBPHILOSOPHER (Wednesday, December 1, 2010). Retrieved August 4, 2014, from http://www.catholicwebphilosopher.com/2010/12/feeding-of-five-thousand-and-miracle-of.html.

[2] Resolution 8014—This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, 2004, re-adopted during the 2012 General Conference  of the UMC at Tampa, Florida.

[3] John Gill, “John vi. 35, 53,” An Exposition of the New Testament, emphasis added.

[4] C.S. Lewis, “Fern-seed and Elephants,” in response to Alec Vidler on the feeding of the five thousand, “Quite incredible that we should have had to wait nearly 2000 years to be told by a theologian called Dr Alec Vidler that what the church has always regarded as a miracle was, in fact a parable.”

[5] C.S. Lewis, “The Practical Conclusion,” Mere Christianity.

[6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 17:24.

[7] C.S. Lewis, Ibid.

[8] I am beginning to suspect that the notion of the Eucharist being just a “symbol” is a survival of Gnosticism with its extreme dualism and disdain of physical matter. Indeed, the thought that the physical and the spiritual are so utterly divorced that physical matter is held to be incapable of conveying spiritual grace has such Gnostic overtones that I suspect that most modern neo-evangelicalism with its emphases on intellectualistic individualism  and creedalistic “evangelism” (“Do you know what Christ did for you?”) is actually neo-Gnosticism. And this is the reason why I can NEVER become a Baptist, whose doctrines have such a strong flavor of Gnosticism and whose polity hearkens back to the Nicolaitans, “victory of the people”.

[9] Op. cit.

[10] John Wesley, Sermon 101: The Duty of Constant Communion.