Why is it that so many of the larger evangelical churches in America and across the world shy away from the usage of sacraments? They may practice a type of baptism, and on occasion, distribute bread and grape juice to their members, but no real spiritual significance is given such actions.
Baptism–which they believe the Christian can experience as many times as desired–is understood to be the individual’s public commitment, or recommitment, to Christ. The Lord’s Supper is re-enacted as a fellowship meal, kind of like when a family gets together at Thanksgiving.
Of course, from the time of the Apostles, baptism–even of babies–was practiced within the Church as was the Lord’s Supper celebrated every Sunday. It was not an issue. Why? The Old Testament people of God, the children of Israel, had also had sacraments: Circumcision, which included an 8-day-old infant in God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:1-14), and Passover, in which each family would eat the lamb sacrificed for their sins (Ex. 12:1-48).
And both baptism and the Lord’s Supper had been instituted by Christ. As Christ was baptized by John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit descending upon Him (Matt. 3:16), so after celebrating the Old Testament, the Passover, for the last time with His disciples, Christ instituted what He called the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper (Lk. 22:20).
For over a thousand years, the Christian church baptized and celebrated the Lord’s Supper as intended by Christ. But over time they began to be abused, baptism being tied to citizenship in the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires, and the Lord’s Supper denied entire regions and countries for political purposes. Perhaps the worst abuse that emerged over time was the idea that somehow in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the priest was taking part in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
In the 16th century this abuse was finally exposed when a German monk by the name of Martin Luther (1483-1546) pointed out the discrepancy between what Jesus taught and what the church was teaching and doing. The end result was reform of both the practice and teaching of the church concerning baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
But for some Christians at that time, the abuse of both had been too much. Their solution? Abandon baptism and the Lord’s Supper as significant aspects of the Christian life. Yes, they could somehow be part of the Christian life, but they would not convey the Holy Spirit, or the body and blood of Christ, or the forgiveness of sin.
The goal ultimately? Remove anything that stood between the individual Christian and God Himself. By de-emphasizing the sacraments they believed that is exactly what would happen. How? Without need for baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the Christian did not need that which traditionally had administered both: the Church. It was the Church, after all, that they believed was responsible for their abuse.
So at the end of the day, the rejection of the sacraments as the way by which our Savior Jesus Christ works among us was simply a rejection of a worldly authority gone amok: A church which had abused both baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
But of course the critical question: If our Lord Jesus Christ instituted baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and they are correctly taught and administered nowadays, should they not be used and enjoyed?
In other words, should the abuse of the baptism and the Lord’s Supper really mean that they should be rejected out of hand?
Or should they simply be used properly for our benefit?