"Mere" Symbols

Here is a statement about the Lord’s Supper. Taking note of the highlighted portions, can you guess who wrote it?

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Give up? It comes from the Second London Confession, a seventeenth-century Baptist statement of faith. Did you know that early Baptists believed that, in receiving the Lord’s Supper, believers “really and indeed … receive and feed upon Christ crucified” because his body and blood are “spiritually present”¬ù? I must admit, it floored me when I first discovered it.

I think that kind of language would have shocked some of my former pastors. In my experience, Baptists don’t always do a very good job of celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Frankly, I’m not sure any major free-church tradition does it justice.

A couple years ago William de Arteaga wrote Forgotten Power, a historical survey of the place of the Lord’s Supper in early American revival movements. Although you would never guess it by observing the contemporary behavior of most evangelical Protestants, Holy Communion held a prominent place both in theory and practice, all the way back to the British roots of American revivalism.

Even a very cursory study of ancient Christian worship indicates that the Eucharist lay at its very heart. The weekly gathering of Christians was primarily a fellowship meal with deep spiritual significance. Not only did they read the Scriptures and pray; they celebrated God’s saving deeds in Christ as they re-enacted them at the Lord’s Table.

On the other hand, for most of my church upbringing, the attitude seems to have been “the less the better.” And that is a shame. Baptists historically have said that the communion elements are “symbols”¬ù of the body and blood of Christ. I don’t believe them. If in fact they believed that the bread and the cup were symbols, we would handle them with quite a bit more reverence than we do.

Consider the reverence with which we Americans treat our flag. We learn in scouts or elementary school or JROTC or somewhere that you treat the flag with reverence. You fold it “just so.” You reverently raise it in the morning and take it down at night. There is a little ceremony for each.

How do we react if Old Glory should fall to the ground? I have seen perfectly rational adults visibly distressed to see someone carrying the flag haphazardly so that it drags the ground as they walk. For some, it is the height of disrespect. I can’t say that I blame them.

None of this means that we have confused the symbol (the flag) with the reality it represents (the country). And none of it means that I personally hold the emblem of my country in disrespect. But to the extent that we are devoted to the reality, we will be sure to honor the symbol.

If we give this kind of honor to merely earthly symbols, how much more should we treat the symbols of our Lord’s body and blood with great reverence! But of course, most free-churchers don’t. How do we react should someone inadvertently drop the bread or spill the cup? I have attended at least one worship service where this occurred, and the responses ran the gamut from lighthearted tittering that the service was “interrupted” by the loud noise of metal platters hitting the floor to, well, irritability that the service was “interrupted” by the loud noise of metal platters hitting the floor. The bread on the floor was an afterthought at best. The pastor even joked about needing someone to help clean up the mess.

How do we dispose of the leftover bread and wine (excuse me, grape juice) at the end of the service? We usually just toss it in the trash and pour it down the sink! Is that what we do with symbols of our faith? I’m not trying to argue for the kinds of Eucharistic devotion that are common in more sacramental churches. I find them to be excessive and personally distasteful (I guess I’m fated to be a Protestant to the bitter end!) I am simply asking why our secular culture has established protocols for handling the flag with proper respect, but our church culture seems not to care how we handle that which we say are emblems of the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord?

It seems modernity and “Romophobia”¬ù have just about slammed the door on any possibility of making much of Communion. As a result, what ought to be the most central act of Christian worship too often becomes an afterthought. In my current church, whenever we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, the observance is noted with a single line in the order of worship. The offering gets more ink! Those early Baptists who penned the Second London Confession believed the Eucharist had the potential to make Christ and his benefits “spiritually present”¬ù in the lives of believers. How would you approach the Lord’s Table if you thought they were right? How often would be “too often”¬ù to receive the bread and the cup?

Obviously, there are enough qualifications in the London statement to keep a healthy distance from the sacramental interpretations of Roman Catholicism or even Lutheranism. But it is also a far cry from the modernistic opinion that the bread and the cup of Communion are “mere”¬ù symbols and nothing more. It is actually much closer to affirming the “real presence”¬ù of Christ at the Table than his “real absence.”

And that is fine with me, because I need all the Jesus I can get.