Do This
The Eucharist as a Key to Pastoral Care
and Renewal in the Church
“What else are the sacraments...if not the action of Christ in the Holy Spirit?...when the Church celebrates the Eucharist, it is Christ who celebrates it: ‘This is my body.’ And so on. All the sacraments are an action of Christ, the action of God in Christ. And therefore it is truly difficult to speak of the silence of God. One must speak, rather, of the desire to stifle the voice of God.”1
The view of the Eucharist by the typical American Protestant has suffered due to misunderstandings of the Reformation movement and the ongoing fear concerning ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Sacramental theology as a whole and Eucharistic theology in particular has been unjustly pushed into the background and has lost its rightful place at the center of Christian worship. The role of the pastor and indeed the view of the Church as the community of the Spirit, because of this trend, has also suffered, and the care the pastor can offer to God’s people has been significantly lessened, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
I will show that the Eucharist is still properly at the center of pastoral care and that pastoral care can hardly be effective without the Eucharist. By revisiting the Scriptural texts concerning the breaking of the bread, the history of sacramental theology in the early Church and the explanations of Luther and Calvin viewed through the lens of John Wesley, I hope to draw an ecumenical portrait of this particular aspect of pastoral care while placing it within a United Methodist frame.
In Christ’s diverse Church, many terms are used for the sacrament of the Eucharist, and these terms each have something to offer. One can often decipher a church’s particular theology of the Eucharist by clues offered in the use of these terms.
The term associated primarily with the Roman Catholic tradition is Mass. While it is also applied to the whole of the Roman liturgy, it is properly used for the Eucharistic acts. The term is probably derived from the liturgy as practiced in the Middle Ages.2 The Mass has often been criticized for concentrating too greatly on the Crucifixion of Christ while virtually ignoring his Resurrection. This is an unfair criticism when it is noted that Mass is celebrated every day of the year with the exception of Good Friday. It is theoretically a useful term because of its relation to ancient tradition, but practically is not preferred due to its special connection to one specific denomination, in this case the Roman Catholic Church.
Holy Communion is the a term particularly popular in the traditions of the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists. While properly emphasizing communication between God and the Church as well as the sanctity of the sacrament, the word “communion” itself also refers to a number of other ecclesiastical acts, and also to a specific part of the Eucharistic liturgy (the actual distribution of the elements), and not to the entire rite. This term, then, prevalent in my own tradition, is not without problems.
Another term used, popular with the Reformers and enjoying continuing popularity in non-sacramental denominations, is the Lord’s Supper. The term has suffered in usage by those who regard the Eucharist as merely a memorial ordinance and not sacramental in nature as well as by those who, wishing to correct such misconceptions, have concentrated in the rite too greatly on the events of Holy Thursday and Good Friday, failing to emphasize the acts and power of the Risen Christ.
Eucharist is an ancient term derived from the Greek word eucaris, which literally means “good grace” or “good gift.” This is usually translated in the Scriptural texts as “thanksgiving.” This term has come to mean that the sacrament is a means of grace given as a gift to the Church, for which we extend our thanks to God. The term thus counterbalances notions that the rite is simply a morbid recollection of Christ’s brutal death, and its connection with Scripture and with history makes it perhaps the most ecumenical as well as the most favorable term to use. I have chosen to use it throughout this paper.3
In an increasingly ecumenical age, when pastoral care is not strictly limited to denominational bounds, the term Eucharist is perhaps most useful as a bridge builder as well as a teaching method for sacramental theology.
The Eucharist is referred to, directly or indirectly, throughout the New Testament. Paul makes the earliest mention of the rite in 1 Corinthians 11. Each of the synoptic Gospels mentions it, and it is referred to again in Acts 2. The early Church is characterized thusly in Acts 2:42: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”4 The use of the definite articles before the nouns in the Greek suggest that this characterization is primarily liturgical; the possible assumption is that within days, perhaps within hours or moments after Pentecost, the Church began sharing together a Eucharistic meal. The meal, in the first centuries of the Church, was apparently also celebrated as a “messianic feast”, recalling Christ’s incarnation but also looking to the future and his inevitable return.5
Whenever the Eucharist is shared, the so-called “institution narratives” are also shared from the synoptic Gospels. The Church must remind itself that Jesus did not institute something brand new, but rather reinterpreted the special meal shared by believers during Passover. Like the Jewish Passover meal, the Christian Eucharist is thus a remembrance of God’s mighty act in leading the escape from bondage and slavery.
But the Jewish tradition shared by Jesus, Paul, and the early Church had a far broader view of “remembrance” than our contemporary understanding. The Greek word translated as remembrance is amanesis (in Hebrew ZKR), a nearly sacred term in Judaism. American Protestants usually understand remembering to be a solitary act utilizing mental recall. The early Church understood remembering to be a far greater act, “...a corporate act in which the event remembered was experienced anew through ritual repetition.”6 This obviously places the primary emphasis of the Eucharist not on thought or contemplation, but on the corporate act of the Church; in the liturgy, “do this” is as important as “in remembrance of me.” The act of God through the Church was therefore a primary emphasis of the early Church.
In the Middle Ages, the Church began attempting to define God’s act and Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist in ways that were for the most part foreign to Jesus, Paul, and the early Church. Using Aristotelian philosophy, in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council defined the doctrine of transubstantiation, which stated that the real substance of the bread and wine were actually transformed into Christ’s body and blood, even if the outward appearances remained unchanged. While having the benefit of placing a high view of extreme importance on the Eucharist, the doctrine had its drawbacks when Aristotelian philosophy fell into disfavor, which was certainly the case by the Reformation of the sixteenth century.
Martin Luther’s explanation of the Eucharist was founded on the idea of Christ’s ubiquitous presence, or the idea that Christ is everywhere. Our perception, clouded by sin, is unable to recognize our Lord until, in the Eucharist, the veil of sin is temporarily lifted. We thus discover in the sacramental elements the presence of Christ. This has properly been termed ubiquitarianism. Lutherans later formulated that Christ is “in, with, and under” the Eucharistic elements, seemingly reclaiming for their tradition a bit of the Aristotelian thought associated with transubstantiation.
Ulrich Zwingli attempted to deal a mortal blow to both the Roman and Lutheran understandings of the Eucharist. To Zwingli, the Eucharist recalled an historic event, and are no more than symbolic. This idea, termed memorialism, was certainly far removed from the idea of amanesis as practiced in the early Church.
John Calvin found Zwingli’s Eucharistic theology distasteful and attempted to draw a middle ground between Luther and Zwingli. By the power of the Spirit, according to Calvin, we are joined with the Risen Christ. The elements are not transformed but we are transported to Christ’s presence in heaven. Sometimes termed virtualism, Calvin’s position is strengthened by his emphasis on the epiklesis, or action of the Spirit, but his intimation that we are somehow floated up to heaven where Christ sits is as mystifying to the contemporary Church as is transubstantiation or ubiquitarianism.
Although the work of Zwingli was merged with that of Calvin to form the Reformed school of theology, it was Zwingli’s sacramental theology which tended to dominate (only in the Netherlands and Scotland was Calvin followed more closely). Also, as the Age of Reason dawned, many in the Church saw little point to anything other than a mere memorial meal.
Into this era came John and Charles Wesley, who attempted to reverse the trend and restore the Eucharist to its primary place in the Faith, particularly within the Church of England. In 1745, the brothers published a book of 166 original hymns written concerning the same subject, the Eucharist.8 It was the firm belief of the Wesleys, particularly John, that the Eucharist was a key in the renewal of the Church. The Church of England required communion three times a year (Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost), but Wesley encouraged a much more frequent celebration, taking the sacrament an average of every three to five days himself. Wesley elaborated on Anglican sacramental theology, holding to a generally high view of the Eucharist and drawing from both Luther and Calvin.
Ultimately, Methodism in America forgot Wesley’s views, seemingly ignoring one of his finest sermons, “The Duty of Constant Communion.”9 Zwingli’s memorialism came to dominate throughout both the Methodist movement in America and the rising tide of fundamentalism found in several denominations, particularly the Baptists.10 The last half of the twentieth century has seen reconsideration of sacramental theology as a force for Church renewal in not only The United Methodist Church, but also among Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and even Roman Catholics.
Five meanings behind the Eucharist have dominated throughout the Christian tradition. The sacrament, far more than a memorial act, is a living feast, with Christ and his Church.
1.) Creation as Divine Communication. Through the food and drink of the sacrament, God is made known through created, earthly things. Incarnation thus becomes primary. Humanity aids in the preparation of creation by baking the bread and fermenting the wine, representing our role as stewards of creation, cooperating with the Creator.
2.) Covenantal Initiation and Interaction. One cannot earn from God an invitation to the Table, but is invited through God’s grace, and what is received is meant to strengthen the covenant between God and God’s people.
3.) Christ at Center. Jesus Christ is both the inaugurator of the new creation as well and the initiator of the new covenant. The Eucharist is thus a feast in which we, with the Risen Lord, incarnate the hope of reconciliation between God and the creation. “Christ is the host, and hence the one who sets the rules.”12
4.) The Church: Inadequate but Moving On Toward Perfection. An imperfect, sinfully divided Church is both judged and strengthened by the Host of the Feast. The Church is a corporate body, not individualistic, and thus the sacrament is communal, and is properly celebrated within the congregation.
5.) The Coming Kingdom. We celebrate in the Eucharist the communion of the saints, feasting with those who have gone before - John Chrysostom, Francis of Assisi, John Wesley, Thomas Merton, Mother Theresa - and the full body who have died in Christ, including our loved ones. We thus celebrate the Christian hope of resurrection from the dead and await the consummation of the Kingdom of God upon the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is a central role of the pastor to communicate the full range of meaning behind the Eucharist in order to free the people from the bondage of Zwingli’s memorialism.
John Leith presents three tasks of pastoral care, three ways to accomplish its purpose.13 These are easily connected to the role of the pastor in administering the Eucharist.
First of all, pastoral care takes place as the people gather for worship. While the reading and preaching of the gospel are fundamental means of grace, the Church must not forget the sacrament. Like preaching, the Eucharist “...has to do with faith, hope and love, with the sustenance and the transformation of the human soul.”14 The Eucharist is the proclamation of the gospel, and God’s grace can be found in its faithful use.
Secondly, pastoral care “...brings the resources of Christian faith to bear on the crises and passages of life.”15
The disparity between what we are and what we ought to be, the now and the not yet, is realized in the Eucharist and is healed, as Luther’s veil of sin is lifted and we view Christ’s real presence in our lives, and as we are transported with Calvin to heavenly heights, into the throne room of God.
Finally, pastoral care involves specific acts. Many of these take place within the Eucharist. Here Leith also discusses pastoral visitation. While administering the sacrament to the sick and homebound is appropriate, it must always be seen as an extension of the congregational celebration in worship. The contemporary Church, in devising new ways to involve the laity working together with the pastor in delivering the Eucharist to the homebound, should continue to explore this important and essential ministry.16
The role of the pastor can be seen in terms of linear chronology, as having a past, present and future. The Eucharist also fits well into this model of pastoral care.
It is the function of the pastor to faithfully recall the past, the history of salvation in Israel and the Church, the grace of DE INCARNATIONE VERBI DEI, and the story of the Church as it struggled with the apostolic message. In this regard, the Eucharist is a sure and effective means of grace. John Wesley sometimes allowed at the Table the unbaptized, those unsure of their faith. He thus used the Eucharist as an (effective) tool of evangelism, and people had Aldersgate experiences because of this practice.17 In remembering the past in the Eucharist, we also commune with our sisters and brothers in the Holy Spirit, including those who have died. This powerful act of unity is essential in any ecclesiology which emphasizes the corporate act of the Church, as in the Methodist tradition.
The pastor must also relate to the present. The people of the Church have both a mission and needs. The Eucharist is an indispensable tool in relating the urgent mission of the Church to spread the gospel. Though visibly unseen, Christ’s real presence with his people in the Feast calls us to daily obedience. The Eucharist is also an act of healing for the Church, as an “explosion of grace” upon the Church.
Finally, the pastor must proclaim the Christian hope of the coming Kingdom of God, the imminent parousia, and the resurrection of the dead in Christ. It is this gospel which transforms creation each time it is proclaimed. The Eucharist then is also an eschatological act, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”18
The Eucharist is one of the oldest Christian rituals. Instituted by Christ, it is a proven means of grace. It is the charge of every pastor to faithfully administer the sacraments, and yet the Church has misunderstood the Eucharist and not given this rite the central place in worship that it deserves. It remains a foremost obstacle in the ecumenical movement, where it should be a uniting act.
As John Wesley believed, the faithful administration of the Eucharist is a certain key to renewal in the Church. As Pentecostal denominations are experiencing a dramatic growth period, The United Methodist Church and other mainline denominations are losing membership. The reason that the Pentecostal movement is flourishing is because they give proper respect to the Holy Spirit. If The United Methodist Church and its smaller partners are to experience renewal, we must also allow the Holy Spirit proper place in worship, ministry, and pastoral care. Done with theological integrity, this must be done by re-examining the Eucharist and allowing the Spirit to move in this deposit of faith. Then, and only then, will we be able to once again effectively lead the way to transformation for the sake of Jesus Christ and move onward to perfection in Christ, remaining faithful to the apostolic truth until our Lord returns on that beautiful day.
Our Lord, come!
1. His Holiness John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. New York City: Knopf, 1994 (130).
2. Dix, Dom Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre, 1945.
3. These terms are outlined in several places, including Louis Bouyer’s Eucharist, John Bowmer’s The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Early Methodism, and Laurence Hull Stookey’s Eucharist: Christ’s Feast With the Church.
4. Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. 5. Bonnie Thurston, Spiritual Life in the Early Church. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993 (22).
6. Laurence Hull Stookey, Eucharist: Christ’s Feast With the Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993 (28). Much of my discussion of amanesis is indebted to Stookey’s fine work.
7. In this section I draw heavily from Alister McGrath’s concise discussion in Christian Theology, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
8. Hymns on the Lord’s Supper. London: Epworth, 1948.
9. The Works of John Wesley. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958-59.
10. Even today, as the Church encourages more frequent observance of the Eucharist, the seeds of discontent are written into ecclesiastical law. The Book of Discipline (par. 267.3, 1996), in dealing with the celebration of World Communion Sunday, states that offerings taken on Sundays when the sacrament is celebrated be remitted to the General Board; the implication is that the sacrament need not be celebrated every Sunday, in clear violation of Wesley’s wishes.
11. Used first in reference to the baptismal rites in Laurence Hull Stookey’s Baptism, they were revisited by him in Eucharist. While not exhaustive, they are nevertheless effective sacramental models.
12. Stookey, Eucharist (22).
13. John H. Leith, From Generation to Generation. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990 (154-158).
14. Leith (154).
15. Ibid (155).
16. The Book of Discipline - 1996 (par. 331.1b).
17. This is an antecedent of the “Open Table” in The United Methodist Church. The ecumenical movement has also provided great impetus in this regard.
18. 1 Corinthians 11:26, New Revised Standard Version.
Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 1996. Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1996.
Borgen, Ole E. John Wesley on the Sacraments: A Theological Study. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.
Bouyer, Louis. Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1968.
Bowmer, John C. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in Early Methodism. London: Dacre, 1951.
Calhoun, William Ellis. “Developing a Theology of the Lord’s Supper in a United Methodist Congregation.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, 1989.
Dix, Dom Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre, 1945.
Harper, Albert F., ed. The Wesley Bible (New King James Version): A Personal Study Bible for Holy Living. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990.
His Holiness John Paul II. Crossing the Threshold of Hope. New York City: Knopf, 1994.
Holy Bible (New Revised Standard Version). Nashville: Holman, 1990.
Leith, John H. From Generation to Generation: The Renewal of the Church According to Its Own Theology and Practice. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1990.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
__________. Understanding the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988.
Oden, Thomas C. Pastoral Theology: Essentials of Ministry. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1983.
Richardson, Cyril C., ed. Early Christian Fathers. New York City: Macmillan, 1970.
Saint Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996.
Saint Gregory the Great. Pastoral Care. New York City: Newman, 1950.
Stookey, Laurence Hull. Baptism: Christ’s Act In The Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.
__________. Eucharist: Christ’s Feast With The Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993.
Thurston, Bonnie. Spiritual Life in the Early Church: The Witness of Acts and Ephesians. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993.
The United Methodist Book of Worship. Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1992.
The United Methodist Hymnal. Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1989.
Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. London: Epworth, 1954.
__________. The Works of John Wesley. 14 vols. Thomas Jackson, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958-1959.
Wesley, John and Wesley, Charles. Hymns on the Lord’s Supper, with a Preface concerning the Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice. London: Epworth, 1948.
World Council of Churches. Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 111). Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982.
© 1997 mcilwain@penn.com