kneelcommunionYou might think that people who do something repeatedly over a period of years would come to know its practice and meaning intimately.  In the case of the celebration of Holy Communion, you would be wrong.  Each month (the preferred schedule for the institution of the Lord’s Supper in United Methodism) millions of worshipers in our congregations participate in one of the two seminal sacraments of our faith.  But what exactly does this “holy mystery” mean to those who partake?  For most, apparently, it remains a mystery.

From December 2005 through July 2006, 1,200 United Methodists (200 clergy, 1,000 laity) were surveyed to better understand the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and understanding held by those who celebrate communion.  961 surveys were completed (163 clergy, 798 laity) and a series of phone interviews followed with 95 pastors and 247 lay people from the survey sample.  What follows is a brief summary of our findings and a series of questions yet to be explored.

All participants were asked to rate the importance of participation in the Lord’s Supper as a spiritual discipline/means of grace.  They were given five options: essential, important, not very important, unimportant, and don’t know.  Twenty-one (13%) clergy said it is “essential,” with one hundred eleven (68%) saying it is “very important.”  Two troubling results were the eighteen clergy (11%) saying “not very important,” and the thirteen clergy (8%) who responded “don’t know.”  At least none said, “unimportant.”  This is not so for laity.  The celebration of the Lord’s Supper is much less important to laity than to clergy.  Communion is “essential” for 72 of the laity (9%), “very important” for 141 (18%), “not very important” for 219 (27%), “unimportant” for 135 (17%), and 231 (29%) responded “don’t know.”  For 2-out-of 5 of our lay people, communion simply isn’t important, and almost another third don’t know if it’s important or not.

An open ended question asked repondents to explain the meaning of communion.  Clergy articulated answers both historically accurate and theologically defensible 91% of the time, but as to its significance in the lives of Christian believers, things get a little fuzzier.  About ten percent of our clergy (16) are closet Catholics, believing that the elements of bread and juice are transformed into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ.  Thirty-one pastors (19%) explain that communion is not something we do for God, but something God does in us.  What that something is varies from “uniting us as Christ’s body” to “forgiving our sins,” to “connecting us to the Gospel story,” to “transforming us from believers to disciples.”  Eighty-five (52%) describe the practice as a “sacrament,” and explain it as a ritual of the church that gives us our identity.  Another forty-four (27%) say it is a symbolic act, done in “remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for us.”  (Some pastors gave dual answers – so the total is larger than 100%).  Ultimately, the answers given are reminiscent of the blind men and the elephant – each describing that part of the whole that is most meaningful to them personally.  One note: This Holy Mystery, adopted by the 2004 General Conference has yet to make much of an impact on our understanding of Holy Communion in United Methodism.  Most of the clergy are aware of the resource, two-thirds have a copy, but fewer than one-in-twelve (8%) have read it.

communionOn the laity side, “a ritual of the church” is the answer of choice to describe the meaning of communion – 347 of the 798 (43%) offered some variation of this answer.  Another 19% (152) take the Roman Catholic option, believing that bread and grape juice become the actual body and blood of Jesus. About ten percent of respondents choose “an act of remembrance,” and another ten percent say it is “an act of solidarity.”  The remaining nineteen percent are all over the theological map – from “a monthly practice of church members,” to “a Christian vitamin pill,” to “an outdated, ancient, and irrelevant holdover from a pre-modern form of the Christian faith.”

We asked people if they “look forward to Holy Communion.”  On the clergy side, 40% look forward to it, 26% do not look forward to it, and 34% have no feelings one way or another.  Of the 1-in-4 who do not look forward to it, the primary reasons given are that it is a hassle, it makes the service run too long, it causes a drop in attendance, and too many people just go through the motions.  The laity are equally divided in thirds: 31% look forward to it, 35% do not, and 34% do not care either way.  Seventeen percent of laity respondents report that they often choose to stay home when communion is being served.  The number one laity complaint about communion is that it makes the worship service too long.

We asked if the overall church experience would be diminished if the church stopped serving communion.  Seventy-one percent of clergy said yes, but an additional sixteen percent said there were so many other important and meaningful practices in the church that communion wouldn’t be missed.  Thirteen percent report that overall, people’s experience of church wouldn’t suffer due to the elimination of the Lord’s Supper.  On the laity side of the question, only a handful – 14% — believe that the fundamental nature of the Christian church would suffer if we stopped offering communion.  For eighty-one percent of the sample, it would make no real difference to their faith were they to stop celebrating communion.

One other question posed to all respondents was “does celebrating communion make you feel closer to God?” For clergy, 86% say yes and 14% said it makes no difference. For laity, 62% feel closer, while 38% feel no different.

This summary reports a very cursory survey of United Methodist’s attitudes and understandings of Holy Communion.  We did not cultivate a representative or statistically significant sample.  It was decided that this was not a fruitful avenue for further exploration at this time.  However, I believe it raises some important questions, and while it may reflect my own personal bias, I believe it points to a theological identity crisis that does indeed invite further study.

Some of the questions I believe need answers:

  • How do we teach church members and visitors about Holy Communion?
  • Why does the Lord’s Supper hold such low significance for our communities of faith?
  • What is the basic understanding of “sacrament” in The United Methodist Church?  (see my companion report on Baptism in The UMC.)
  • What is the role and responsibility of the ordained leader to communicate the importance and significance of Communion?
  • How has our understanding and practice of Holy Communion arrived at the state it is in?

13 responses to “Broken for You… But Definitely Broken”

  1. Daniel Benedict Avatar

    Steve, I agree with your strong comment about the centrality of the sacraments–both baptism and the Eucharist. They are not only central as the means of grace and to our Christian experience; theologically they are the foundation of our ecclesiology. Perhaps it comes off as triumphalist, but I will say it anyway: no sacraments, no church! Without the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, I can’t see how we have an ecclesiology.
    Dan

  2. Steve West Avatar

    For me, the sacraments are absolutely central. My church seems to love the way we practice it and my Wednesday night Bible study group said the study we did on “This Holy Mystery” was the best study we had ever done because it was so illuminating to them. One of them said that when he was younger, communion was not very important to him and he thought it was tedious, but that later in his journey he looked forward to it so much. When I pressed him about what the difference was, he said “well, I had pastors a while back who sort of tacked it onto the sermon and never really preached about what it meant. When it is given emphasis it makes a difference.”

  3. Mike in Colorado Avatar
    Mike in Colorado

    The survey is revealing, but I think Gary Wake has identified the root cause of the ignorance and apathy about Holy Communion (and Holy Scripture) in mainline clergy leadership. “Then we had a pastor who was committed to communion, who led the service with reverence and who convinced the church to have it twice a month, as well as sing the responses. It is vastly different now, and I would be in favor of weekly communion.”

    I would generalize that many mainline clergy would rather be perceived as college professors than as faith leaders who believe in their faith, and mainline schools of theology, tied to secular universities, appease the secular departments by creating gracious servants to current secular culture.

  4. Daniel Benedict Avatar

    We, with our sisters and brothers, in the Anglican tradition, and perhaps in the larger ecumenical house (see Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) are what the Anglicans call “via media”–middle way folk who seek to hold sacramental reality between “left wing” Protestant/memorialist understandings of the Lord’s Supper and “right wing” liturgically understandings [I mean that in a kindly way –Roman Catholic position] (See James F. White’s spectrum approach in Introduction to Christian Worship (3rd edition), p. 38). While we UMs do not explain philosophically how the bread and wine are for us the body and blood of Christ, we do take them semiotically as the body and blood of Christ. The Article XVIII to the contrary, the language of our ritual is pretty substantive in terms of what we ask God to do with us and with the elements!

  5. doroteos2 Avatar
    doroteos2

    I hear what you’re saying, Gary, but I want to be clear that Wesley and United Methodism do state a position on transubstantiation. This is from page 32 of This Holy Mystery:

    “While, in the history of the church, reverence for the consecrated elements has sometimes led to superstition, proper respect for the elements helps Christians grow in authentic sacramental piety.

    As Article XVIII of The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church makes clear, United Methodism rejects any suggestion that the bread and wine used in Communion are transformed or transubstantiated into other substances: Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. (BOD; page 64)

    (The United Methodist Church notes that the anti-Roman Catholic tone of Article XVIII reflects the “bitterly polemical” relationships of past centuries and “rejoice[s] in the positive contemporary relationships that are being developed . . . at levels both official and unofficial” [BOR; pages 237-238].)”

  6. Gary Wake Avatar

    That makes sense, but I would argue that “are the actual” may also represent knowledge of Methodist ideas. This Holy Mystery says “The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully.” Doesn’t change the results in anyway, but to me the “representing, reminding, substituting” are just as much closet Baptists as the “are the actual” are closet Catholics. Great information though. Seriously making me consider a 6 week adult class on communion. Wonder if I’d get anyone to show up?

  7. Gary Wake Avatar

    Thanks for this summary. At one time, I found communion to be a tedious part of worship and probably skipped more often on communion Sundays than any other. Then we had a pastor who was committed to communion, who led the service with reverence and who convinced the church to have it twice a month, as well as sing the responses. It is vastly different now, and I would be in favor of weekly communion.

    I have a question re: “About ten percent…are closet Catholics.” How was the question phrased?

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      The “closet Catholics” comment isn’t meant disrespectfully, but descriptively. We asked people, “If you were to describe Holy Communion to someone who has never experienced it, what would you say?” One-in-ten of our clergy and two-in-ten of our laity use language that reflects that the bread and juice/wine “become,” “are changed into,” or “are the actual” body and blood of Jesus. Most respondents describe the bread and juice as “representing,” “symbolizing,” “reminding,” or “substituting for” the body and blood of the Christ. Many of the lay people in our survey had some Catholic upbringing, so this isn’t overly surprising.

      1. Daniel Benedict Avatar

        The “closet Catholics” description surprised me. However, upon reading your description of the answer:
        “One-in-ten of our clergy and two-in-ten of our laity use language that reflects that the bread and juice/wine ‘BECOME,’ [emphasis mine] ‘are changed into,’ or ‘are the actual’ body and blood of Jesus.”

        Maybe our ritual texts are working. When the ritual is followed, the presider invokes the Spirit saying, “Pour out you Holy Spirit on us gathered here and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.”

        Would that even 10% of clergy and laity took that how epiclesis to heart and lived into the sacramental grace we invoke and the daily life grace and discipleship we anticipate!

        Dan Benedict

Leave a comment