Reexamining Sacramental Life for Baptists and Evangelicals

A strange theology has overtaken American Christianity, a force that has largely remained oblique and unpopular for the first 1900 years of the faith and yet that has become popularized and spread in the emergence of Fundamentalist Evangelicalism’s ascendency. This strange belief has become the default view among American Evangelicals and effectively denies the role of the sacraments in the healthy life of the church.

With the onset of the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church’s view of the Lord’s Supper came under examination due to its alleged medieval superstitions. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, and John Knox affirmed the early church’s historic teaching of the real presence of Christ in the elements, but the exact nature of the consecrated element became a hotly debated mystery. Transubstantiation, being heavily reliant on Aristotelian categories, was thrown out, but the traditions that emerged generally agreed that the sacrament imparted grace, required a valid presbyter to consecrate, was commanded by Christ to partake, needed to be taken frequently and in good conscience, and that Christ was in some way present within the elements. 

The minority position of the Reformation was the memorialist position—that the Lord’s Supper is merely a reminder of Christ’s death and that it is wrong, therefore, to say that Christ is somehow “present” in the Supper. This notion is highly contested, but variations of the memorialist view would be handed down through the Anabaptist tradition. Its ideas eventually filtered down into theological discourse as its members sought exile in the New World, pooling among the soup of new enlightenment, deistic, and rationalist ideals floating around the radical coffeehouses of revolutionary thinkers in the United States. These ideas grew amid the Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries, which radically changed the face of American Christianity for better and worse. 

The complex soup of ideas that made up America’s public life at that time produced a wildly diverse range of results. The same forces that created Jonathan Edwards and that made George Whitefield famous would also create the Adventists, the Latter-Day Saints, Oneness Pentecostalism, spiritualism, neopaganism, theosophy, romanticism, naturalism, and fundamentalism. 

Stewing in this complicated brew of fundamentalism, restorationism, and revivalism among American Evangelicals, memorialism gradually became the dominant force among Evangelical Protestantism. The memorialist view has even become normalized among other mainline denominations as well, with Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and Methodism growing more inclined to embrace it despite their historic confessions—a likely side effect of the conservative laity’s preference for literalism and general disdain for the intellectualism of decaying mainline churches. 

While Reformed Baptists generally still embrace historic teachings on the Lord’s Supper, the majority of Evangelicals view communion as a symbolic act and many partake in it no more than a few times per year. While this might not seem strange to modern Baptists, this position is at odds with the historical views of the progenitors of the Baptist tradition. Although the memorialist view is now the majority position, it remains the historical minority view among those in the Baptist tradition, and many within the Reformed tradition have attempted to push for it to be reexamined and embraced. 

Among the defenders of this view is Dr. Gavin Ortlund, a theologian in residence at Immanuel Church in Nashville and the founder of the online ministry Truth Unites. As he argues, the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is the historic teaching of the Baptist tradition going back as far as the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. It is also the view proclaimed by popular Reformed Baptists like Charles Spurgeon, who argues the Eucharist is the “nearest union with Christ here that we have ever known.” 

This view of the Lord’s Supper is distinct from the Roman Catholic view but still asserts that Christ is, in some sense, present in the communion elements. As Dr. Ortlund argues in his YouTube videos, “The emphasis on this view is in the Holy Spirit, which is why it is called Spiritual Presence. The Holy Spirit affects a union between the Eucharistic species, the consecrated bread or wine, and the body and blood of Christ. Christ is locally present in Heaven, but there is a union through the Holy Spirit that is mystical and cannot be explained.” 

He continues, “the Spiritual Presence view merely leaves open the mechanics of how this happens. We’re simply not defining and saying ‘I don’t know.’ It doesn’t have this Aristotelian ontology of the substance-accidentence distinction, which is the way transubstantiation is defined. It doesn’t tighten the screws philosophically.”  

Dr. Ortlund further points to John Calvin’s sacramental theology, which explains the Spiritual Presence view that “What our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.” He continues, stating that it is ”that sacred communion of the flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow.”

One does not need to rely upon Calvin and Luther to defend this position. Arguments in favor of a higher view of the sacrament of communion can be defended through scripture. While scripture does not lay out a clear Catechism for the full nature of the sacrament, it does lay out clues. John 6:52-58 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 suggest a deep spiritual importance to the consumption of the bread and wine, with the Apostle Paul warning partakers to avoid doing so under unworthy circumstances.

“Whosever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself,” he says.   

As the Lutheran author Gene Edward Veith Jr. argues in his book Spirituality of the Cross, “This doesn’t sound merely symbolic.” There is great spiritual importance to the act of partaking in communion, which speaks to our commitment to sanctifying our souls and obeying Christ. The means of how such grace is delivered is highly debatable and remains one of the core disagreements between Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals. Defining the nature of a sentence like “this is my body broken for you” is challenging depending on your definition of the word “is”, in Christ’s phrase “this is my body, broken for you,” but any systematic analysis of the whole body of scripture must conclude that the consecrated communion must in some sense contain more than mere bread. 

This view certainly aligns with what records have survived from the early church, with many Pagan critics of early Christianity describing converts as cannibals and blood drinkers. The early church father Ignatius of Antioch similarly affirms a very high view of the Lord’s Supper as early as the second century, calling it “flesh” and “blood” as Christ implies in John 6. The Didache, an early church document often attributed directly to the apostles, says that through the Eucharist “You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant” and instructs followers not to give it to the unbaptized and unholy.  

This is largely in line with what Baptists have historically believed. As the London Baptist Confession affirms, “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses” (emphasis mine).  

There is certainly an understandable instinct that has driven this evolution and development in Baptist theology. Protestant sects are always in tension between the letter of scripture and what is taught through tradition. While Baptists do not defy traditional beliefs in all circumstances—such as the theology of the trinity—they do affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and are generally weary of superstition. Anti-Papalism is a dominant mode of thought among many Baptists, who fear that entertaining manmade or extra-biblical traditions could set the denomination on the path to disobedience and ruin. Innovation and skepticism are real dangers that can be encouraged in this mode of thinking. 

However, looking at the state of the Baptist tradition, embracing more historic traditions may well be necessary for the good of the church. The American Church has become heavily driven by innovation and seeker-focused approaches to worship and theology. Evangelicalism is the spirit of the age, even as Christianity’s persistent decline as a cultural force continues. Christianity is chasing after a culture that is rapidly moving away from it. 

Traditional Baptist services are far less popular than contemporary ones and are mostly preserved for the few remaining elderly church members who prefer the hymns or gospel music they grew up with. 

The Baptist tradition in America is in a momentary holding pattern, remaining one of the few denominations that isn’t facing an imminent and total demographic collapse within the next 20 years. However, it is also in a precarious state. There is no shortage of anecdotes of young Baptists fleeing for Anglicanism, Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy who crave different approaches to theology and the benefits of the sacraments. There is an underserved minority in our midst who require a more authoritative and traditional approach to historic Christianity. Embracing that minority could renew a more authoritative, historic, and traditional approach to Christianity at a time when those things are becoming rarer. 

One cannot simply make massive changes to the theology of a church overnight, particularly an ever-evolving denomination with changing demographics and an aging population, but to the degree that it is possible, historic Protestant confessional teachings being carefully reevaluated and potentially reintroduced into the Baptist tradition would be a good thing. Such changes would take time and should be handled with care to respecting the text of scripture. The real presence view may be correct, but as the Roman church’s recent Eucharistic Revival shows, catechizing the laity can be an uphill battle, particularly with evangelicals who are prone to departing at the first sign of perceived error. 

However, there would be benefits, as we see from the recent growth of high church traditions. While creeds and confessions are not always respected or authoritative in modern Evangelical Christianity, they are a valuable bulwark to our friends in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, a persistent reminder of unchanging things and our ability to create a solid foundation for the church based on the things we know to be true through scripture.

In an age when all too many outsiders of the church view Christians as ignorant fundamentalists pushing a worldview with no connection to the coarseness of the real world, the sacraments have a wonderful benefit as tangible signs of grace that require discipline and participation to enjoy their full benefits. They bring the realities of Christianity down to Earth, and learning to partake in them can help us grow in our faith and connect more personally with Christ. 

As the Center for Baptist Renewal argues, there is strong reason for a move away from the memorialist view, arguing that, “one of the greatest weaknesses of the modern evangelical church is our low view of these sacraments. They are not magic wands that automatically dispense God’s grace, but they are certainly not irrelevant to the growth of any Christian’s growth in grace.”

Sacramentalism is often a dirty word among Baptists, but there is value in it. The Baptist Church is a tradition, and it has traditions that could reinvigorate it if they were to be reappropriated, reexamined, and re-implemented. Most Baptists view the sacrament as an empty symbol to be taken rarely, but to paraphrase novelist Flannery O’Connor, if it is just a symbol than to heck with it. What is the point? 

However, Baptists obviously shouldn’t just embrace the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the sake of being popular and flowing with the tides of traditionalist church culture, but ought to do so because it is true. One should not innovate on matters of grace lightly, but come to truth through careful introspection and respect for the Word of God. We should not take our understanding of these important means of grace lightly. If Christ is present in the elements, it is the greatest truth and grace we could ever know. If not, then to heck with it.