Breaking Bread
One of the greatest changes wrought by the Reformation was the destruction of the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church (September 1520) really was theological dynamite!
When Luther stood before Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, at the Diet of Worms in April 1521 there were some things that could be forgiven him in the minds of more liberal Catholics. Jean Glapion, Charles’ confessor-priest was trying to cobble together a compromise right up to the eleventh hour. If Luther had limited himself to criticism of indulgences or even to justification by faith alone then compromise would have been possible. This is surprising to many since it was justification by faith alone that was at the very heart of the new evangelical faith. However, Luther’s teaching on the subject could not be deemed “heretical” in the eyes of the Church since the Church had never established a definitive viewpoint on this subject. Only in response to Luther did the Roman Church at the Council of Trent (1547) decree that man is saved by faith and by works. In the 1520s and 30s it was perfectly possible for a loyal son of the Catholic Church such as Cardinal Gasparo Contarini to hold a virtually identical justification theology to Luther.
It was Luther’s sacramental theology that placed him beyond the pale in the eyes of virtually all Catholics. In the Babylonian Captivity, Luther redefined what a sacrament was and having done so he consequently reduced their number from 7 to 2. A sacrament, in Luther’s eyes, was not a ceremony of the Church that conveyed grace, but a ceremony given specifically by Christ to the Church which involved the use of physical and material things to convey spiritual truths. Marriage, extreme unction, confirmation and holy orders were rejected out of hand as sacraments. Penance was re-defined and massively scaled down in its importance. In effect, this left Luther and his supporters with two sacraments – baptism and breaking bread.
Luther’s critique of the Mass (the Catholic Church’s word for the service where Christ’s death on the cross was celebrated through bread and wine) was devastating. He rejected the Church’s teaching that the Mass was both a “good work” and a sacrifice. He insisted that communion should be in two “kinds” for all who partake, that is, that both the bread and the wine be given to the “laity”. Normal practice at this time was to give only the bread to the lay persons and only the “priest” would drink the wine. Finally, Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Church’s doctrine to explain philosophically the miracle of bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ.
Within a year or two of the writing of the Babylonian Captivity, other evangelical theologians were going still further than Luther, rejecting the whole idea of the doctrine of the “real presence” (the idea that the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ). Luther had rejected transubstantiation but not the idea of a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words “This is My body”. This was to lead to a fundamental division in the newly formed Protestant Churches. By 1527 Luther was writing a pamphlet aimed at Ulrich Zwingli the leader of the evangelical Church in Zurich entitled Against the Fanatics (1527) in which he said he would “Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics”.
Over the next few weeks I am planning to take another look at this deeply divisive and controversial subject which was to prove so damaging to the unity of the evangelical movement. What was Luther really trying to say? Why was he so intransigent in his insistence on the real presence? How did Zwingli arrive at his “memorial” viewpoint? We should not think for a moment that all this is part of some merely arcane historical debate. Nearly 500 years later our churches are still dogged by this theological controversy. We are so keen to distance ourselves from the Roman position that we unthinkingly adopt a Zwinglian position which robs breaking bread of much of its power and significance. Hence, if we break bread at all, many of us do so formulaically or clumsily. As is so often the case, we shall find that it is John Calvin who gives us some penetrating insightful perspectives that ought to transform how we break bread together.
This is part 1 of a four part series on Communion.
Comments
By Al Shaw on 07/02/2012 at 10:52
An important issue.
Is there any chance that you could, in the course of the series, go beyond the sacremantal issues outlined above and also address an issue of practice?
Specifically, do you/we believe that sharing bread and wine alone are a sufficient way of enacting this meal, or do the gospels and the practice of the early chuch lead us to view it as a “real” meal, of which our bread-and-wine-only approach is a pale imitation?
By Andy Johnston on 07/02/2012 at 14:17
Bread and wine are sufficient as this is the NT command that Jesus gives. However, I do agree that a “real meal” is a great way of breaking bread together. The original Passover meal which, of course, Jesus was celebrating with His friends was a “proper meal” as was the Last Supper. The first century church certainly broke bread in the context of a meal (1 Corinthians 11:17-34 makes this clear). By the end of the first century the “love feast” was coming into increasing disrepute (see 2 Peter 2:13 & Jude 12). It was separated out from breaking bread with the latter taking place on a Sunday morning and the former taking place on a Sunday evening. This eventually led to the “love feast” being dropped altogether which is a pity. Simply because something gets abused doesn’t mean to say that we scrap it completely.
I would certainly agree with the central point that you are driving towards that breaking bread in a small group context over a meal can be a really meaningful way of obeying Jesus in this respect, but I would not want to be too prescriptive. “Pale imitation” occurs when we fail to teach into what we are doing so that people end up not really getting what it is all about rather than because we only give them bread and wine.
By Steve Vaughan on 08/02/2012 at 11:50
Hi Andy,
I am really looking forward to this series and I’d also like to hear what you have to say about the practice as well as theology of the Lord’s Supper.
In terms of the importance of celebrating the Lord’s Supper over a meal, whilst not wanting to be prescriptive, I can’t see any reason why we should take it out of a real meal. As you say, starting with the backdrop of the passover, moving on the last supper, then reading about the meal at Corinth, then the love feast in Jude, not to mention the various terms at the end of Luke and beginning of Acts which take about ‘breaking of bread’ (which seems to be a phrase that captures both ‘meal and Lord’s supper’) - everything seems to point to a real meal. It seems totally clear to me that the MAIN and NORMAL way in which we would celebrate the Lord’s Supper would be around a meal.
Finally, one of the points of the Lord’s Supper is to ‘look forward the heavenly banquet when we’ll feast with Christ and all God’s people’ - however when I am eating one small bit of bread and drinking a sip of wine, often with people’s eyes closed and on their own, it does not lead me to ponder on the joys of heavenly feast where I assume we literally will feast together with Christ in our midst.
So whilst I wouldn’t say we can’t practice the Lord’s Supper in any other way or that it doesn’t have meaning, power and significance when done on a Sunday as part of the worship service, surely it should be done in the context of a normal meal with God’s people.
How we do that with churches our size may be another matter but I think we should still try.
Do you think I am stating things too strongly and making too big a deal of the ‘real meal’?
STEVE
P.S After this series, could you do one on baptism? Another controversial issue.
By Andy Johnston on 09/02/2012 at 00:52
Steve - yes, not much I would take issue with there. I agree that breaking bread is much better done in a “real meal” context. I would, however, stop short of an insistence that it is devoid of value on it’s own as just bread and wine. I totally agree about little bits of bread and little sips of wine with our eyes closed not being the best, or most powerful expression of how to break bread.
I am hoping to get to baptism later in the year but, before that, I hope to do something on the origins of the Calvinist - Arminian debate which are really about ecclesiology rather than about soteriology.
By Richard Lucas on 19/02/2012 at 21:57
Being half-way through writing my Disseration on how Newfrontiers ‘does’ Communion, I’m really interested to see how this discussion develops! My own observation has been that Newfrontiers churches often have a view of Communion that is shaped more by a prejudice against a perceived Roman Catholic view (transubstantiaton) than any real alternative understanding themselves. Current practice in many Newfrontiers churches (and beyond) reflects this ‘reactionary’ stance that often seems to result in a belittling of Communion and its marginalisation in meetings. I also wonder if the meal context is as you say it is, for Paul seems to be saying to the Corinthians that if they’re hungry they should eat at home (1 Cor 11:34)...