… Communion, Schwenckfeld and Schwenkfelder Practices

January 2009

 

In an earlier “Caspar’s Corner” we read about Valentin Crautwald’s visitation from God revealing to Crautwald a new interpretation of the Lord’s Supper.  In this “Caspar’s Corner” we will explore this interpretation further and explain in a few words what the Schwenckfeld/Crautwald interpretation of the Lord’s Supper was, how it was different from other interpretations of the time, and how Schwenkfelders have understood the Lord’s Supper over the years since that time.

During the early days of the Protestant Reformation, the correct interpretation of the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, or The Lord’s Supper was much contested.  The Reformers felt passionately that to participate in the Lord’s Supper incorrectly was blasphemous and a very real threat to the Christian community at large.  For this reason, very passionate debates were held and wars were fought. But in the end, while many views were discussed, three general interpretations were tolerated eventually in most Germanic states. 

The Roman Catholic position, known as transubstantiation, proclaimed that the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ. The Lutheran position, known as consubstantiation, stated that the bread and wine did not change, but the actual presence of Christ was in, with and under the elements.  The third generally accepted interpretation was the Zwinglian tradition, continued in many reformed churches today, which viewed the Lord’s Supper as a memorial – a reminder of the sacrifice of Jesus and our need for the grace he offers in his death on the cross.  These three interpretations were reached through different explanations of the words of institution - “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” – and what Jesus intended by saying these words. 

The Schwenkfeld/Crautwald position was subtly different than these three.  For them the text for interpretation came from John chapter 6 rather than the words of institution.  Jesus taught in verses 55 and 56: My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. This is the bread which came down from heaven.  Crautwald and Schwenckfeld argued that Jesus was teaching about communion in these sections - that the flesh and blood he describes were his spiritual presence.  They insisted that Jesus was truly present in the elements – but that it was a spiritual communion, which we experience.  The spirit comes to the communicant inwardly and spiritually.  The bread and wine are still bread and wine: they are an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, we might say today.  And while the bread and wine help us to focus on the spiritual act of communion, they do not impart grace themselves and are therefore not a necessary part of the act of the Lord’s Supper - helpful, but not required.  Much more could be written on the details of their understanding; however, this provides a very brief summary.

Witnessing the conflict emerge among the various groups regarding this disagreement over the Lord’s Supper – a sacrament of love and grace – truly upset Schwenckfeld.  Early on, at about the time he reached his interpretation with his good friend Valentin Crautwald, he called for the Stillstand: the ceasing of the outward participation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper – until the church reunited.  Consequently, as the years went by after Schwenckfeld’s death, the people identified as Schwenkfelders were frequently marked by their nonparticipation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

When they settled in Pennsylvania and eventually formed a Society of Schwenkfelders, their practices and cultural identity began to change.  The nineteenth century was a particularly rapid period of change: we see the loss of their German language, the coming of professionally trained clergy, the formation and building of churches with much in common with other denominations around them.  Change was also true regarding the Lord’s Supper.  Reinstituted officially by the Schwenkfelders in the 1880’s, communion became a regular part of their worship practices by the early twentieth century.  In terms of interpretation, the Schwenkfelders no longer upheld a distinctive and unique understanding, but rather interpreted the practice, much as did the Reformed tradition, as a memorial or reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice and grace.  Great emphasis was, however, placed on the preparation for Communion with special pre-communion services held the day or week before an announced Sunday Communion.

The practice of Communion in our five Schwenkfelder churches is neither standardized nor regulated.  Each church is responsible for teaching new members regarding the practices in their church as well as determining what the practices are for their church.  While the meaning of communion has certainly changed from our spiritual roots in the sixteenth century, an individual's personal understanding of the spiritual nature of the act of communion remains a part of our shared Schwenkfelder worship experience.

 

 

Continue to our home page