Communion vs Eucharist

An article in Relevant Magazine this month (the issue with Jack White of The White Stripes on the cover, and articles inside about Sigur Ros, She & Him, etc. etc.) brought up the topic of the Communion service, and posed some questions about how Evangelicals view it and treat it.

One of those questions was this: "In de-emphasizing Communion, might we possibly be missing out on something central to our faith?"

What the author meant by de-emphasizing was the typical Baptist practice of viewing Communion as "merely a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper", and participating in that memorial no more than monthly, often less frequently than that. He said "even if it's only symbolic, that symbolism calls attention to so many aspects of our Christian faith. Inclusion at the table. Salvation in and through Christ. The call to love and serve one another. Sacrifice, mercy and the presence of God. Why de-emphasize something so holy, meaningful and fundamental?"

He then went on and asked: "Is it possible Communion is more supernatural than we think?"

This question revolves around the issue of the Real Presence of Jesus in the sacrament. The author suggests that if Catholics and Orthodox are right in their view that during the Eucharist the elements become the body and blood of Jesus - His Real Presence in the Sacrament - then "the Eucharist should be emphasized to the point of obsession. The Catholics are right to structure their worship around it, and low-church Protestants like me are missing out on something big."

He goes on then to suggest that Evangelicals, who are wont to take the Scripture literally as a default position and are rarely budged off of that position, are unusually quick to take John 6:53-56 figuratively.

He also suggests that Evangelicals, who like to apply Pascal's wager to the dilemma of believing in God or not (especially when they argue with atheists), would do well to apply Pascal's wager to the dilemma of believing that the Real Presence of Jesus is in the Eucharist. The wager would go like this:

"If we take [the Eucharist] believing Jesus really is present in the consecrated host and the Communion wine, then the best-case scenario is that we're right, and we should be commended for treating it as a deeply sacred, serious event. Worst case? We've observed an event of remembrance and symbolism - an event which points to the life and resurrection of Jesus - only we've done so with a slight misunderstanding of what it means. Still, not a huge loss.

"But what if we bet against the Real Presence and it turns out we're wrong? Yikes. We've made a big mistake. We've marginalized something essential to the practice of Christianity."

Hm. He further asks: "It's Jesus, after all. Why shouldn't strange and mystical things [...] happen upon ingesting the elements?"

Why not indeed? I think that what has happened in Protestantism over the years to get us to this point is a confluence of an anti-Catholic separatist sentiment and an anti-supernatural modernist worldview. No doubt these things are left over from the Reformation and the Enlightenment, respectively, and will hopefully fade as we move into a post-modern and post-Christian society.

But, even after all these arguments, the author apparently remains conflicted about Communion. Personally, I choose to bet on both sides of Pascal's matrix. One bet is on Saturday at Mass, and the other is on Sunday at worship. I can deal with a little mystery and a little doubt when it comes to faith. Something tells me faith is more genuine and vital when it's uncoupled from a comforting but numbing certitude.

The red pill, please, Morpheus.