Why is there so much disagreement about holy communion?
There is significant disagreement among Christians regarding the meaning and significance of the Lord’s Supper, also known as Holy Communion or the Eucharist. This disagreement stems primarily from differing interpretations of what the Bible teaches about this important practice in the life of the church.
The Biblical Basis for Holy Communion
The practice of sharing bread and wine as part of Christian worship finds its origin in the Last Supper, the final meal that Jesus shared with his disciples before his death. The three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) each describe Jesus breaking bread and sharing wine with his disciples at this meal, and instructing them to continue doing this in remembrance of him (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20). The apostle Paul also refers to the practice of partaking in the bread and the cup in remembrance of Christ’s death in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. From these accounts, it is clear that sharing bread and wine was an important observance instituted by Jesus himself for his followers to continue.
Different Understandings of Holy Communion
Despite the clear biblical foundation for the practice of Holy Communion, there are several major areas of disagreement in how Christians interpret its meaning and significance:
1. Real Presence of Christ in the Elements – Some traditions, such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, hold to a “real presence” view, believing that through consecration by a priest, the substance of the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Other traditions view the bread and wine as symbolic representations of Christ’s body and blood.
2. Efficacy – Those holding to a real presence view often connect it to efficacy, believing that partaking of the Eucharist imparts grace and various spiritual benefits. Some traditions see Holy Communion as a “means of grace” through which God spiritually nourishes believers who partake worthily and with faith. Those holding a more symbolic view are less likely to ascribe spiritual efficacy to the practice.
3. Frequency – Traditions also differ on how often Holy Communion should be observed. Some celebrate it several times a week, others weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annually. Frequency is often connected to views on Christ’s presence in the elements as well as its importance and efficacy.
4. Restrictions on Partaking – With beliefs in real presence and efficacy, some traditions restrict partaking of Holy Communion to members of their church or denomination. Requirements like confirmation, confession, and preparation may also be imposed. Other groups practice “open communion,” welcoming any baptized believer to participate.
5. Name – While all agree on its institution by Christ, various names are used for the practice, including Eucharist, Lord’s Supper, Breaking of Bread, Mass, and Sacrament. Names often reflect particular theological stances.
So disputes over the nature, effects, necessity, and proper administration of Holy Communion have significant implications for how it is practiced. This is why churches range from weekly open communion with bread and juice to yearly closed communion with wafers and wine after confession. The role Holy Communion should play in the life and worship of the church remains debated among Christians. But all traditions agree that Christ himself instituted this remembrance of his death, even if they differ in understanding its precise meaning and practice.
Reasons for the Disagreements
Why has there been so much disagreement historically regarding Holy Communion? Several key factors help explain why interpretations diverged over time:
1. Lack of Details in Scripture – While the Bible establishes the practice of communion, details on proper observance and theological meaning are lacking. This allows room for various traditions and interpretations.
2. Origins in Complex Religious Context – Scholars point to influence from Jewish Passover traditions and pagan rituals in the early development of the Eucharist. This complex backdrop impacted early understandings.
3. Separation from Judaism – As the church became increasingly Gentile, it departed from Jewish perspectives that may have shed light on the Passover connections.
4. Reaction to Idolatry – In response to pagan idol worship, some early Christians began emphasizing Christ’s real presence in the sacrament. Others went the symbolic route to avoid idolatry.
5. Rising Power of Church Authorities – As church hierarchies emerged, clerical control over the Eucharist increased, contributing to distinctive theologies of it.
6. Theological Differences – Disagreements arose between the reformers and the Catholic church, and among the reformers themselves, over the doctrine of Christ’s presence and the effects of partaking.
7. Denominational Divisions – New denominations often defined their own particular Eucharistic practices and theologies,increasing views about proper administration.
8. Revival of Biblical Literacy – Renewed focus on studying Scripture directly has led some believers to reexamine biblical texts on communion and arrive at different conclusions than their church traditions have held.
9. Archaeology and Scholarship – Modern archaeological discoveries concerning Passover traditions and scholarly insights into the church fathers have helped reshape understanding for some believers.
This complex interplay of factors over church history contributed to the wide range of perspectives on the Lord’s Supper today. Sincere believers aiming to understand this important practice look to Scripture, yet still arrive at very different conclusions.
The Lord’s Supper in the Life of the Church
Despite disagreements over certain aspects of the Lord’s Supper, it remains a sacred practice instituted by Jesus himself and a unifying rite for the worldwide church. All Christians can acknowledge its heritage back to Christ and the biblical imperative to remember him through partaking of bread and wine together regularly. This observance connects the church today back to its origins in the Upper Room.
At the same time, the meaning attached to Holy Communion and how it is practiced can significantly shape worship and spirituality for churches and believers. This means discussions over these matters need to proceed with humility, grace, and openness to brothers and sisters in Christ who see things differently.
By focusing on Christ’s original intention for this meal – remembering his death and anticipating his return (Luke 22:16,19) – perhaps more unification can occur around the Lord’s table. Our cultural, theological, and denominational differences fade into the background when we fix our eyes on the suffering and resurrected Savior who invites all his people to partake of this holy meal in remembrance of him.