Did Evangelicals Lose Communion When We Reformed the Eucharist?
A long, long time ago (about 500 years to be exact), in a couple of places far, far away (namely Germany and Switzerland), a group of reformers looked at the church in charge and, distressed by excesses and abuses, sought to make a BIG change. Some of them thought they could maybe make the change from within the church, while others thought it best to toss it all and start over. To put it a bit (okay, very)
simplistically, Evangelicals mostly hail from the line that did the tossing and starting over.
Now that I have that history refresher out of the way, I can try to connect what all that has to do with consumerism, the Eucharist, and torture.
William T. Cavanaugh is the author of two challenging books, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire, and Torture and the Eucharist. Both are rich with theology that calls Christians to be mindful of the nature of God in our lives and in our neighbors. Both also place the Eucharist at the center of tough discussions that need to be had in our American churches. At first I wasn’t sure what Cavanaugh’s view of the Eucharist as a Catholic would bring that would help me navigate these discussions in an Evangelical community.
I was secretly sure this would be a purely academic review post.
My thoughts center mostly on Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire because I think that small book initiates the discussion in a way that leads to Cavanaugh’s other book. In Being Consumed, Cavanaugh walks down familiar territory of Augustinian theology on desire, and Miller’s discussion of detachment and attachment. Having read Miller last week, I figured Cavanaugh’s view of the Eucharist would take me to much the same place as Miller’s did. Cavanaugh’s writing, however, led me to ask the question I asked in my title: Did Evangelicals lose communion when we reformed the Eucharist?
In the Eucharist (and in Protestant communion) the church holds up the body of Christ (however that looks theologically to the community) and the blood of Christ for consumption by the body. As Cavanaugh states, “In the Eucharist, Jesus offers his body and blood to be consumed.”[1] But it doesn’t 
stop there. By consuming the body and blood of Christ, we are also consumed by it. In this act, we abide in Christ and Christ abides in us.[2] According to Cavanaugh, this practice resists the individualistic consumerism that we are tempted to embrace as, in the Eucharist, we are joined with the entire body of Christ who is also consuming and consumed.[3] As the cycle follows, we become the essence of the consumed and consuming Christ for others. By taking Matthew 25:34-36 seriously, we offer the body and blood of Christ to those with whom Christ identifies – the poor, the suffering, and those in need.[4]
So back to my question. By asking if we lost communion when we reformed the Eucharist, I make a pretty broad assumption that all Evangelicals celebrate the Table symbolically rather than with a belief that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the actual body and blood of Christ. I think this is a safe assumption, but I definitely allow room for the possibility that I am wrong. It has also been my experience that most Evangelical traditions celebrate Communion much, much less often than our Catholic (and certain mainline Protestant) siblings. In my home church, it is possible to only miss a few Sundays each year and never celebrate Communion. I have heard many explanations for this, including we don’t want Communion to become too routine, but the reality is that Evangelicalism removed the 
Table from the center of worship, and moved the Word (especially preached) to that place.
Reading Cavanaugh’s work, I began to wonder if this reformation of worship has been at the center of Evangelicalism’s inability to come together as the body of Christ. In our churches, we can easily slip in and out of worship without once thinking about the way we are connected to the greater body. We may participate in ecumenical associations, but our people rarely come face to face with the reality that we 
are consuming, consumed, and feeding if we are truly united with the Body. Does this removal of the Table from constant focus fracture us away from our siblings in Christ, making it easier for us to become gatekeepers who exclude those who do not look, sound, worship, and love the same way we do? What would it mean to consume and be consumed every time we meet together? What would it mean to consume and be consumed as we stand next to a person of another race, gender, generation, creed, or orientation? Would it break down the walls?
Going further, would dedication to the Table bring us, as the Body, to a place where we abhor damage done to any of God’s creations? Would it remind us that the death and resurrection of Christ necessitates that we live as resurrection people? Or in an over simplification of Cavanaugh’s question in Torture and the Eucharist, do resurrection people engage in torture (or slavery, or abuse of other human beings)?
This is where it gets messy. This is where our civil religion claps back at a Christianity that doesn’t demand rights and protections. This is where we realize that being resurrection people requires we participate in the suffering of Christ as well as the suffering of others. For some of us, that’s not what we thought we were signing up for in American Christianity, so maybe we don’t want a regular reminder that we are called to consume only Christ.
[1]. William T. Cavanaugh, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 54.
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
16 responses to “Did Evangelicals Lose Communion When We Reformed the Eucharist?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Challenging as usual, Kristin!!!!
As an ex-practicing Roman Catholic, may I share some things that you hit on that I struggled with?
When I got married and started attending Protestant church with my husband, I was appalled at the 4 times a year communion. We say there is something special about it and then we only do it once a quarter?
And another thing, if you will put up with me, I was also insulted when my new Protestant family gave me a hard time for having a crucifix with Christ on it. Of course I understand that Christ rose from the dead. We celebrated Easter and believe me nobody celebrates like Irish Catholics!
Here’s how it relates to our book: Every morning when I pass the crucifix on the wall I look at my wonderful Savior Who died for me. He sacrificed Himself. He was tortured for us.
I think Protestants could do with more remembrance especially in our day.
Super good post!!
Thank you so much for this perspective, Mary! Growing up I was an outsider looking in within my Catholic neighborhood but I was so moved by the way my neighbors and friends were impacted by the Eucharist and the crucifix. I love your explanation of the crucifix as reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice and love.
I think Protestants, especially Evangelicals struggle with the messiness of it all. We talk about the blood, but would rather not identify with Christ in suffering. We focus on the resurrection (as we should!) but look away from the complicated life and death of Christ (except, of course, to argue about atonement theories). We would do much better to remember.
“This is where we realize that being resurrection people requires we participate in the suffering of Christ as well as the suffering of others.”
This is a key difference between the way that Catholics look at communion as opposed to Evangelicals.
For Catholics, the Eucharist is a “sacrifice.” It is more than just a reenactment of the crucifixion. Those who participate are getting in touch with the suffering of Christ in a very real way.
Evangelicals view Christ as the reigning King. His time of suffering is over. Communion is a time to REMEMBER the sacrifice.
You hit on this when you mentioned the centrality of the Cup in the church versus the Bible.
I found it interesting to view how a Catholic “answer page” and an Evangelical “answer page” both answer questions about the table of Christ.
https://www.gotquestions.org/communion-Christian.html
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass
This is a pretty good explanation of the differences, Stu. Perhaps it’s time for Evangelicals to do some thinking about the Table as participation in the suffering of Christ so that we are better able to participate with humans who suffer, acting as the Body. I think this would help us move away from the personalization only/individualization of salvation and move us to a deeper communion with the whole Body.
Kristin, what a writer! I so enjoy your personal tone in your posts. Love this, “This is where we realize that being resurrection people requires we participate in the suffering of Christ as well as the suffering of others.” We are often reminded about suffering for Christ but rarely about suffering for others. Great reminder and easier said than done. How would you suggest we suffer for others?
Thank you Jennifer!
I think Cavanaugh gives us some good ideas about suffering for/with others by changing practices that perpetuate suffering and instead engaging in practices that are life-giving. For me, that means simplifying my life so I can make space for other people and wading into the messiness of people’s pain even when I don’t identify with it or understand it. I’m not good at it, and it will take a lot more practice, but I think the Table can help.
As Cavanaugh states, “In the Eucharist, Jesus offers his body and blood to be consumed.”[1] But it doesn’t stop there. By consuming the body and blood of Christ, we are also consumed by it. In this act, we abide in Christ and Christ abides in us.
Jesus said as often as you do this remember me. The wine is my blood and the bread is my body.
Reading the scholars interpretation of how this act affects us. I don’t remember that written in the Word of God. Paul says we should examine ourselves as we take these elements.
Christian leaders want to take this act to another level by saying the wine and bread is his blood and body, it will transform you, etc. I reality it doesn’t but in your belief system, you convince yourself that it is true. The most important aspect of this act is what does it mean to you, as an individual and how do you allow that act to affect your relationship with God.
I have been researching this and your article has brought up some good points for me.
I appreciate your thoughts, Lynda.
I don’t agree, though, that the idea of consuming and being consumed is in Scripture. The pinnacle is, of course, in John when Jesus says he will abide in us and we with him as we partake, but I think this is a common thread throughout Scripture as God’s and God’s people become one. God changed Moses’ mind, and Moses changed God’s mind. That can only happen when mutual abiding occurs.
I actually do believe that the bread and the wine CAN transform us, that it is more than simple remembrance. I don’t ascribe to the theology of transubstantiation, but I do think the act of ingesting holy bread and wine changes us when we take seriously what it represents. It is an individual act, done in community to unite the community with Christ and each other so that we understand we are “blessed to be a blessing” to the world.
Kristin! Love it! “Going further, would dedication to the Table bring us, as the Body, to a place where we abhor damage done to any of God’s creations?” this is a part of partaking in the table as a community that we miss. The civil responsibility that we have as a community to one another and stewardship of God’s creation.
Civil responsibility – I like that, Christal!
We talk about that responsibility as citizens of our country but rarely do we talk about the responsibility we have as citizens of the Kingdom to protect and serve and grow that Kingdom in a way that honors God and God’s creation. Maybe we should move away from the civil religion we have created in this country and use the Table to remind us where our allegiances belong when there is a conflict.
One of the markers of my church movement (the Restoration Movement) is weekly communion. But our founders focused so much on the “biblical mandate” to observe weekly communion that they overlooked the theological depth of consuming the Body of Christ. And like most of evangelicalism, the ritual has become solely a memorial, shaped around the sermon. While we may not theologically agree with the Catholics on transubstantiation, we might look to their model of the Eucharist being the climax of each Mass.
Likewise, our movement’s founders spent much of their discussion on whether the Table should be open or closed. Could a Christian from another church (say, a Baptist?!?) partake of the Lord’s Supper in one of our churches? For some reason, we haven’t seemed able to move much beyond that question, other than to follow an unwritten “don’t ask, don’t tell” when it comes to who participates.
Wow, Katy. How can we hope to become the unified Body of Christ if we are gatekeepers of our individual tables?
Yes! Although to be fair, our churches’ answers have generally landed on the side of “open” communion– if you believe Jesus is Lord, you’re welcome to participate in communion. But why is it still a question for a group that began as a “unity movement”?? sigh.
Wow, Kristen…. what a post. You highlight a lot of things that I have thought and tried to say – not nearly as well – in the past.
A couple of weeks ago, when talked about Calvin I did mention that he wanted to have Communion weekly and he was never able to institute it…. I think we would do well to ‘celebrate’ it more and to remember all the aspects of Christ’s life, death and resurrection as we do.
Side note – We Presbyterians try to split the difference on the views of communion: believing that in communion there is a ‘real presence’ of Jesus in the Eucharist but it is spiritual not physical.
That’s actually my understanding of Wesley’s take on communion as well, Chip. He and Calvin were oddly in agreement about many things, including the weekly communion event.
I completely agree that we need to come to the Table more often, with reverence, remembrance, and a heart for the responsibility that comes with the privilege of ingesting the presence of Christ via the work of the Spirit.
Great post as always Kristin.
I guess what I was referring to, and what you commented on in my post (the “Magic” of the Catholic expression) has to do with this elevated view of the Table (capital T) that you express here and feel that we Evangelicals would do well to emulate.
I remember as a new minister in training leading the communion part of our service. I didn’t physically “break the bread” and an old man stood up and shouted that I was desecrating the Lord’s table!
I get a bit nervous around a Catholic overemphasis of the mystical and the magical in the Eucharist.
A good one for us to discuss!