3. The Eucharist as MEMORIAL.
Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer most eager to depart with anything that smelled of the Medieval Church in the Latin West, dismissed any notion of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine. Christ is “spiritually present” with the worshippers who have gathered, just as Jesus had promised to be present whenever “two or three gather” in His name. The focus was no longer on the words of institution from Christ—”This is my body, this is my blood”—but on His injunction to do this “in remembrance.”
Thus, the Eucharist became for Zwingli a “memorial meal.” It is a moment where we reflect on what God has done for us in Christ—the grace and forgiveness that has been poured out. It becomes a place of thanksgiving—which is what the word “eucharist” itself means. The Eucharist as memorial is a time to remember and to give thanks.
[SIDE-NOTE: America’s roots in the Reformation’s “free church” movements are part of the reason why so many American Christians are willing to see the Eucharist as an interchangeable part of our corporate worship. From a “memorial meal,” it has devolved into “just one way” to “experience God’s presence.” Most people “experience God” in a song service, with the aid of a skilled band. Certainly, there is something powerful about that, but I think there is something a song cannot do that a sacrament can.]
How about all three?
Calvin and Cranmer, among other Reformers, tried to pull together the best of these three traditions: the Catholic and Lutheran view of the Eucharist as a sign—sacrament; the Zwinglian/Swiss view of the Eucharist as a memorial meal; and the Eastern Orthodox view of the Eucharist as a mystery.
I tend to agree. The Eucharist is, as Augustine wrote, an outward, visible sign of an inward, invisible grace. It tells us something is happening here, involving our faith and God’s grace.
But the Eucharist is also a mystery because we do not know how it is happening. Explanations have fallen short. The Medieval Church’s notion of transubstantiation—codified by St. Thomas Aquinas—may have gone too far, but with good intentions. Luther’s “consubstantiation” may have been making the best of a deeply held belief without getting too superstitious. But Calvin and Cranmer’s emphasis on the spiritual presence of Christ through the Holy Spirit seems more robust—and Trinitarian. Still, if we were to be pressed about how Christ is present, we may be driven to humbly say: “I do not know. It is a Great Mystery.” And so we tremble as we worship.
Finally, the Eucharist is indeed a memorial. Though—as we shall see in Part 2—the Eucharist leads us to look ahead to a great future hope, it certainly also leads us to look back and remember. It is the time for “Great Thanksgiving.”
So, why not hold the best of all three of these views together?
What is your view of communion? Why?
