Communion (The Eucharist)

The Last Supper, by Bouveret - 1896

As I visited churches, I didn't always have Communion (the Eucharist) with them.  While some churches have The Eucharist (Communion) weekly, many have it monthly, and some have it quarterly.  So if I visited a church that held it monthly, or quarterly, I was not always there on their Communion Sunday.  On the other hand, if they held it weekly, then of course, I was there for that service.

However, all churches observe Communion (The Eucharist).  There is only one exception among the churches I visited, and that is the Salvation Army.  They do not observe it as part of their church service, believing it is merely an outward sign of an inward grace - that should be observed in the heart.  Quakers also do not observe this on the same grounds - but I did not visit them as they do not have a church in Petaluma.  All other orthodox Christian churches observe this.  So for almost all such churches, this is a point of unity.

Most Christian traditions also believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements (the bread [or host] and the wine).  That is, they really believe Christ is present in the elements, and the elements are not merely symbols.  On this point, there is unity in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopal, and Methodist traditions.  While each may understand the Real Presence differently (another topic for discussion), they each affirm it.  While I do not want to overlook the different ways different traditions understand this, I would rather not focus on those differences.

The Baptist tradition (and those who stand in the Baptist tradition) denies the Real Presence - that is they believe the elements are merely symbolic.  However, they affirm that Christ is present during the Communion, as He is present throughout the entire service, since Christ said where two or three are gathered in His name, He is present.  (Matthew 18:20)

To be sure, all such traditions believe the elements, the bread and the wine, are to some degree symbolic, or signs, or represent in some sense - the body and blood of Jesus, especially since at the Last Supper, Jesus was still bodily present when he presented the bread and the wine to the apostles.  However, most traditions do not regard them as merely symbols.

In addition, all such traditions agree that The Eucharist (or Communion) is a memorial, or a remembrance. However, some believe it is only a memorial - while others believe it is a reenactment memorial, similar to how Israel reenacted the Passover as a memorial (somewhat similar to how we, as Americans, reenact Thanksgiving as a memorial to the first Pilgrims).

Some traditions believe the bread must be unleavened, while others accept leavened bread, and others leave it optional.  Unfortunately, at times, in Church history, there have been fierce battles over this, and some still see this as a point of contention (though many others accept either).

While some Christians, traditions, or churches, seem to focus on the areas of disagreement here, and argue forcefully about it, I, and many other Christians, traditions, and churches would rather focus on the areas of agreement here, and avoid an argument, if possible, without overlooking differences and diversity, and instead, promote unity here to the extent possible.

Finally, that leaves the issue about why some traditions call it Communion, while some call it The Eucharist.  Eucharist simply means thanksgiving in Greek.  All Christians agree there is thanksgiving in this celebration. Communion is a Latin word for sharing something in common - the Greek word is koininia - often translated fellowship in the New Testament.  So while some may see grounds here for disagreement, I see more grounds for agreement - all Christians would agree that the remembrance of the Last Supper is both cause for thanksgiving and something we share in common, and a basis for fellowship.

The Sermon (or Homily)

As I visited churches - many asked me what differences I observed.  One obvious difference I saw was in the sermon (or the homily).  The main difference had to do with the amount of time for a sermon, though I also observed many different styles as well.


An average pastor delivers a sermon in between 20 and 30 minutes, with some shorter and some longer.  In the Catholic Church, the priest delivers a homily usually no longer than abut 10 minutes (I understand they are suppose to aim for 8 minutes.)  Usually mainline church pastors deliver their sermons around 15 - 20 minutes.  Evangelical pastors usually deliver their sermons in around 30 minutes or so.  Baptist pastors tend to average around 40 minutes.  Pentecostal pastors may give a sermon that last up to an hour.

Though Catholic priests (pastors) gave shorter homilies (sermons) - they usually have longer Bible readings before it, including an Old Testament reading, an New Testament reading, and a Gospel reading.  So while other sermons may be longer, a good portion of the time involves the pastor reading an initial passage the sermon is based on (expounds), and many cross-references during the sermon.  So in a way, the Catholic homily is almost as  long because the Scripture readings are done before the homily (sermon)  (also in many mainline churches) and the priest refers to them in his homily.  I found in my visits the amount of time of the sermon was not nearly as important as its quality - and some pastors could say much without a great deal of time, and some could keep a lengthy sermon interesting.


As to style of sermon, there about as many different styles as there are pastors.  The style of the sermon is very important - whether to converse, project, be loud, be soft, plead, cajole, or be tender.  The better pastors tended to vary their style through the sermon.  However, the most important factor I observed was whether the pastor could be himself - rather than pretend to be someone else.  

Liturgical or Non-Liturgical

As I visited the churches, some asked me - what are some of the main differences you encountered? One of the biggest differences I encountered was between liturgical and non-liturgical churches.

As soon as I said that, some immediately knew what I was talking about, while most seemed confused and immediately asked what is a liturgical church?

A liturgical church follows a liturgy. Though liturgy is a Greek word which basically means ceremony, a liturgical church usually refers to a church that follows a script during the worship service, while a non-liturgical church, which often has an order of service, usually does not follow a script.

In most, though not all liturgical churches, the script for the liturgy is set by the denomination from the central bureaucracy, so that all the churches of that denomination follows the same script (though some variations are allowed). In contrast, while non-liturgical churches may follow some sort of a script, it is usually developed at the local level.

When you attend a liturgical church, the script is usually provided to you in a missal, in a prayer book, in the bulletin, or some other manner. If you attend a non-liturgical church, if there is a script, it might not be provided, or if it is, it is either in the bulletin, or these days, projected.

However, most visitors notice other aspects that indicate a liturgical or non-liturgical church. In liturgical churches, the priests or pastors tend to wear ceremonial robes, while in non-liturgical churches they do not. Liturgical churches tend to sing hymns, while non-liturgical churches focus more and more on contemporary music. Liturgical churches tend to a more elaborate Communion (Eucharist) portion of the service than non-liturgical churches. Liturgical churches tend to be much more ornate than non-liturgical churches. Liturgical churches tend to have a more formal service while non-liturgical services tend to be much more informal.

Many liturgical churches have tried to diverge by having a traditional service and a separate contemporary service. In the meantime, some non-liturgical churches have incorporated some liturgical elements into their service.

Liturgical or non-liturgical is not a Catholic-Protestant dividing line. While Catholic churches are liturgical, many Protestant churches follow a liturgical service, including Episcopals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists, among others.

Church attendees tend to have strong feelings about this. Some strongly prefer a liturgical (traditional) service, while others strongly prefer a non-liturgical (contemporary) service. It often depends on their background and good or bad experiences they had in the past.

I enjoyed both during my visits. To the extent I could, I tried to alternate and go to a liturgical service one Sunday, followed by a non-liturgical service the next Sunday. I found a richness in both traditions, and did not see them as necessarily in conflict. I appreciated both traditions.

Agree More Than Disagree

Visiting all the churches in town confirmed to me that we agree on much more than we disagree. Sometimes it's a matter of where we place our focus. If we focus on areas of agreement, then we will tend to look for and find areas of agreement. If we focus on areas of disagreement, then we will tend to look for and find areas of disagreement. Of course, it's a lot easier to focus on areas of agreement if they outnumber the areas of disagreement, and that is what I found reconfirmed as I visited all the churches.

I don't mean we should overlook areas of disagreements. What I mean is we should put those disagreements in some sort of context, and weigh them against all the areas of agreement. Otherwise, our focus quickly gets sidetracked to areas of disagreements, and we can quickly get lost in what tends to become an ensuing spiral. We tend to lose all perspective on what we did, or might otherwise, agree on. More importantly, we tend to lose all or any sense of unity and love.

A very large area of agreement which almost all orthodox Christian churches agree on are

the doctrines found in the Nicene Creed, which some traditions recite every Sunday (and others recite less often - and some not at all). If we focus on these areas of agreement, it tends to put our areas of disagreement in perspective. We don't tend to think of the Nicene Creed as a set of doctrines because it was written in simple manner but yet addresses profound areas of philosophical questions and problems, as well as address deep matters of doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and many other doctrinal matters. Though I don't have the time and space here to discuss it at length, I have posted about the Nicene Creed in my other blog (in four parts) - here are the links:

http://rudyrentzel.blogspot.com/2010/08/nicene-creed-intro.html
http://rudyrentzel.blogspot.com/2010/11/nicene-creed-part-1.html
http://rudyrentzel.blogspot.com/2010/11/nicene-creed-part-2.html
http://rudyrentzel.blogspot.com/2010/12/nicene-creed-part-3.html

The Joy of Fellowship

I haven't posted for a while since I have been busy helping to start a new church, The Vine Church of Petaluma.

In my last post, I mentioned I would offer my general observations and conclusions from visiting the various churches. So this is my first post on that.

I had a great time visiting all the churches in Petaluma. I really enjoyed meeting and spending at least a bit of time with all the brothers and sisters in Christ in all of the various churches who love the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course I didn't meet all of them, though in some smaller churches I did.

There is joy in fellowship, and I experienced some of that. It wasn't the sort of fellowship you experience when you join a church body, and develop relationships with the members of that body. However, I experienced a different sort of fellowship since there are so many Christians throughout Petaluma. It felt a little bit like heaven when we will be with Christians from every nation and from throughout the ages. I really enjoyed talking with Christians from the different churches, and finding out what was going on in their lives, and in the life of their church.

Almost Conclusion

Well, I completed my journey of visiting all the churches in Petaluma within the parameters I set forth in my Introduction. Altogether (and in summary), I visited (or attendeed) 33 churches, which I list below in alphabetical order (excluding the words The/A/De or Church/Iglesia, but including the word Petaluma if that is the first word in a name). (If I attended or visited a church more than once, I list my last attendance, or visit, and you can follow the links there to any earlier attendances or visits.) (Since St. is an abbreviation for Saint, I will use the full word.) (All dates are for 2011.) You can review this list to see if you missed a church you might be interested in knowing about. If you think I missed a church (that fits the parameters in my Introduction), let me know.

• 360 Church of Petaluma (October 2nd)
• Adobe Christian Center (November 13th)
• Iglesia Apostolico (March 20th)
• Iglesia Bautista de Petaluma (September 4th)
• Calvary Chapel (August 28th)
• A Church of Christ in Petaluma (May 22nd)
• Iglesia de Christo El Renuevo (December 4th)
• Eastside Church (August 14th)
• Elim Lutheran Church (February 13th)
• First Baptist Church (July 17th)
• First Presbyterian Church (July 3rd)
• Hessel Church (July 24th)
• Hillside Church (October 23rd)
• Living Word (Evangelical) Lutheran Church (August 28th)
• New Life Christian Fellowship (June 26th)
• New Life Seventh Day Adventist Church (February 5th)
• Open Door Christian Church (September 11th)
• Penngrove Community Church (September 30th)
• Petaluma Christian Church (June 19th)
• Petaluma United Methodist Church (July 10th)
• Petaluma Valley Baptist Church (March 13th)
• River of Joy (Fellowship) (Petaluma) (October 15th)
• St. James Catholic Church (November 27th)
• St. John's Anglican Church (March 27th)
• St. John's Episcopal Church (June 12th)
• St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church (May 29th)
• St. Mary's Chapel (August 7th)
• St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church (April 3rd)
• The Salvation Army (Church) (November 6th)
• Sovereign Grace Baptist Church (April 17th)
• United Church of Christ (January 30th)
• The Vine Church of Petaluma (November 20th)
• Village Baptist Church (January 16th)

Several of you have asked what I have learned from this journey. I will offer my general observations and conclusions in some upcoming posts.

Iglesia De Christo El Renuevo

This last Sunday (Dec. 4th), I visited Iglesia De Christo El Renuevo at 963 Transport Way. This is a Spanish pentecostalist church, similar to Iglesia Apostolico which I visited back in March, though different. They average about 25 members in attendance on Sundays, with mixed ages.

The pastor is Luis Signor. I believe he told me he is from Guatemala.

Spanish pentecostalists tend to have very lively and emotional services, though at times, the music slows down to allow a very intense connection with God and the Holy Spirit. It seems to work well in the Hispanic culture, which may explain why pentecostalism is one of the fastest growing church movements in Latin America. The service goes about 2 and a half hours, so plan accordingly if you visit.

They are part of a much larger organization called Ministerios Ebenezer. I am not sure what that is, but when I do a search on the web, they seem to be all over Latin America.