I post these things so that non-Baptists can understand our view, not agree with it. And we’re aware that we don’t have an identical sacramental view or articulate the presence of Christ as you guys do. Mutual understanding. We aren’t looking for how “close” or “far” we are. We accept the differences.

What makes Moore “not your typical Baptist preacher?” (not including that he is smarter than almost everyone, not just Baptist preachers)

It is so difficult to talk about communion at a symbolic level – let alone as a sacrament, while in other aspects evangelicals are ravenously material. Bread and wine cannot be used by God, but somehow a new car, a good job, a trophy wife, a big house, etc. are necessary to prove that one is under God’s blessing.

I think I know how we got here. Wierd things happened during the reformation. Iconoclastic zeal purged churches of anything appearing remotely idolatrous or “papist”; at the same time certain reformers were teaching that God uses base impulses like greed to direct us. A dualism appeared which made the physical world evil but at the same time useful and exploitable.

Evangelical churches today obviously use physical things every Sunday, but not necessarily in a sacred manner but merely utilitarian. Once and a while an odd one-off appears, such as God speaking to someone through the music. Maybe we can touch dirty, earthy things but God can’t. So much for the incarnation.

Anyway, I like what Russell Moore had to say. I like how he tied the physical elements to God’s word. He really brought home the personal aspect of communion: this is FOR YOU. What Jesus accomplished 2,000+ years ago is as real to us today as it was for the disciples, and God uses communion to drive this point home. I think he also touched on the social side of communion: that God feeds us so that we may feed others.

I guess there is the fear of sacraments or religious symbols becoming a gateway to magic and superstition – physical elements taking on oppressive powers or being used to oppress by those who control them. I certainly can sympathize with that concern.

Yes, I’m SBC, and yes, I’ll use the word “sacrament” rather than “ordinance,” explaining that Baptism and Holy Communion are, to paraphrase St. Augustine, “visible signs of an invisible grace.” Frankly, I really wish Zwingli hadn’t started that battle. You don’t have to believe in transubstantiation to believe there’s something mystical about the means given to us by Our Lord to remember His sacrifice for our sins. If the Table were only a memorial, people wouldn’t have died in Corinth for partaking unworthily.

Do we fear the accusation of “irrational” if we admit we cannot explain every detail? C.S. Lewis said, “The Command was ‘take, eat,’ not “take, understand.” (Letters to Malcom)

Besides, I suspect we would see fewer divisions among our congregations if we spent more time uniting around the Table.

Thanks for posting this.