Communion Question

[seajoy]

Confess, What are your elders saying about this situation? Or is this something this person brought to you, and no one else knows about it.

 

[Confess]

Confess,

You are correct in that we can not know a man's heart, but we are told that taking the sacrament when we are not understanding or agreeing with the confession of faith at the altar that we could be taking the sacrament to our judgment. Regardless of how much they think they know.

If you are his pastor and you think he has the knowledge and understanding of Christ's real presence in, with and under the bread and wine then by all means commune him, but otherwise I would do as DaRev says and make him go through the catechism classes.

I am not saying to stop the classes. What I condem is the refusal to examine. You and I know that neither of us take the sacrament to our health 100% of the time. I confess that there have been times where I wanted to go home and not even take it. There were times where I was so frustrated with other things that I wasn't even thinking about what I was receiving.

To have a pietistic attitude that only those who take the class will have proper understanding is to admit that you don't have a proper understanding of what the Lutherans believe about sin.

None of us are perfect. No pastor has the right to refuse to hear a man's confession of faith just because he is diluted with the belief that confirmation equals understanding.

There are people who have been confirmed years ago and have totally forgotten everything they learned in confirmation class. Confirmation class is not Holy and commanded by God. It is an aid for those who have never learned or been taught the faith. It is an aid that joins others to the congregation in doctrinal unity.

To make confirmation the only route to communion is to make confirmation into the LAW.

 

[Confess]

Those are the requirements of the LCMS, though, and they apply to everyone or they should.

When I returned to my home church, the church where I was confirmed, I too had to attend catechism refresher courses before regaining my membership. This was never a request by my pastor, but a requirement. I fully accepted and welcomed it. The more we learn, the more we come to understand how little we know.

What's wrong with respecting and honoring the pastor's wishes? He is responsible for his flock, after all.

I am not against the learning. I am against the disrespectful attitude of a pastor who rejects hearing a man's confession of faith.

I am also against the idea that confirmation completion = the Lord's Supper. That is not the practice of the LCMS officially, rather it is a common practice that congregations feel comfortable with.

 

[Confess]

Confess, What are your elders saying about this situation? Or is this something this person brought to you, and no one else knows about it.

The elders do what the pastor says. No one is going to make a fuss out of it for certain reasons. I just needed to vent.

 

[Confess]

Again, it's a little more involved than just understanding the Real Presence. It involves doctrinal agreement and fellowship at the altar. Like I said before, the ELCA teaches out of the same catechism, but they are not in fellowship with our altar. Those who come to the LCMS from the ELCA are required to be instructed just as if they came from anywhere else. The content of their instruction may be altered, but instruction in the fellowship of the LCMS is necessary.

It is even more involved then that Rev. It involves whether a pastor has the right to refuse to hear a man's confession of faith. Also to liken it with the ELCA bothers me. For by doing so you are rejecting a man's confession and assuming evil where they may not be any. It is not the pastors job to do anything other than to hear a man's confession and to agree with it where the man speaks the truth and to disagree where the man disagrees with the truth of God's Word.

To add anything more to it would be to sin.

 

[seajoy]

I'm sorry this is upsetting you so much...and venting is fine.
I guess from my perspective, in this day and age of anything goes, when it comes to communion, this pastor seems to really take this seriously....that's a good thing. How understanding is this person of what the pastor has said concerning this? Is he angry, or accepting and frustrated, or what?

 

[DaRev]

It is an aid that joins others to the congregation in doctrinal unity.

That is the first thing you've said that I agree with. And that is exactly why inbstruction is necessary. In the LCMS communion is "close", in other words, it is reserved for those in fellowship with our altars.

Like I have said, those from the ELCA are taught the same things from the same catechism, but they are not in fellowship and require instruction prior to becoming communicant members. Who communes at the altar is the pastor's call. It is his duty. He is not abusing his authority, rather he is exercising it exactly according to his ordination vows.
To say that he is abusing his office and discriminiating is offensive to me as a called and ordained servant of Christ, who would under the same circumstances be doing the exact same thing. I'm sure that you don't mean to do so, nevertheless it is.

 

[Confess]

I'm sorry this is upsetting you so much...and venting is fine.
I guess from my perspective, in this day and age of anything goes, when it comes to communion, this pastor seems to really take this seriously....that's a good thing. How understanding is this person of what the pastor has said concerning this? Is he angry, or accepting and frustrated, or what?

You see that is where I don't agree. I don't believe that he is taking it seriously. I believe that when a pastor refuses to give those who deserve the Holy Meal in order to keep peace with the lack of understanding that his congregation has pertaining to how one is welcomed into the Lord's Supper then he is not serving God, but is serving man.

As for the person I am talking about. He is not happy and sees that the pastor is not working for God, but for man as well. He may not join at all but will continue to go through the classes until he finds another congregation that practices what Lutherans believe on this issue.

The main point not being that he is upset at not receiving the Meal, but being upset that the pastor does not practice what Lutherans believe. He has a high view of the Lord's Supper and has waiting 9 years to receive it.

 

[Confess]

That is the first thing you've said that I agree with. And that is exactly why inbstruction is necessary. In the LCMS communion is "close", in other words, it is reserved for those in fellowship with our altars.

Like I have said, those from the ELCA are taught the same things from the same catechism, but they are not in fellowship and require instruction prior to becoming communicant members. Who communes at the altar is the pastor's call. It is his duty. He is not abusing his authority, rather he is exercising it exactly according to his ordination vows.
To say that he is abusing his office and discriminiating is offensive to me as a called and ordained servant of Christ, who would under the same circumstances be doing the exact same thing. I'm sure that you don't mean to do so, nevertheless it is.

DaRev,
I am sorry, but you are in the same boat as this pastor. You are advocating an abuse of authority as well. Until you can show me where Lutheran preach, teach and believe that a pastor has the right to refuse to hear a man's confession of faith before setting judgement on him, then I will continue to be upset.

You also are not being honest by setting up a straw man arguement using the ELCA. For no man can pressume such guilt on another man's soul without first examining his confession. To say that a man's confession is not good enough, that he might not have proper understanding is a judgement that is not reserved for you, but for God. You are only to hear a man's confession and either agree or disagree with it, anything more it an abuse.

No pastor has the right condem a man's faith and heart before first listening to his confession.

The Lord's Supper is not for those who are unrepentant or for those who do not share the same faith as those in the congregation. The Lord's Supper is also not strictly for those who have done certain works in order to be accepted in the faith either. Confirmation class is not a "must do", there are many people out there who have taken their faith seriously and have spent long hours studying to see if this is the true faith of the Christian church.

This man has spent many years studying, I agree with him in everything he believes as does the congregation. He has never spoken out against anything Lutherans believe and should not be treated as one who knows nothing about the sacrament or the Lutheran faith.

A pastor is wrong when he condems a man's faith before first hearing it. 1 Cor 13 tells us that love is, it rejoices in truth. To refuse to hear a man's confession of faith shows me that this pastor is not a lover of the truth, but is the lover of keeping the peace with man.

 

[seajoy]

A pastor is wrong when he condems a man's faith before first hearing it.

He's comdemned the man's faith? Surely not.

How you handle your discussions with this man are important too. Try to encourage him in what the pastor asks. Pastors do not have an easy job. It's a difficult task, at best. I've seen things happen in congregations, because lay people do not know the whole story, as a pastor must keep things in confidence. My husband was an elder in such a church last year.

I don't know the reasons he waited 9yrs to take classes, but surely a few more months are bearable for him. My advice would be to encouage him...especially since he wants to be a Lutheran Christian so badly.

 

[DaRev]

DaRev,
I am sorry, but you are in the same boat as this pastor. You are advocating an abuse of authority as well. Until you can show me where Lutheran preach, teach and believe that a pastor has the right to refuse to hear a man's confession of faith before setting judgement on him, then I will continue to be upset.

You also are not being honest by setting up a straw man arguement using the ELCA. For no man can pressume such guilt on another man's soul without first examining his confession. To say that a man's confession is not good enough, that he might not have proper understanding is a judgement that is not reserved for you, but for God. You are only to hear a man's confession and either agree or disagree with it, anything more it an abuse.

No pastor has the right condem a man's faith and heart before first listening to his confession.

The Lord's Supper is not for those who are unrepentant or for those who do not share the same faith as those in the congregation. The Lord's Supper is also not strictly for those who have done certain works in order to be accepted in the faith either. Confirmation class is not a "must do", there are many people out there who have taken their faith seriously and have spent long hours studying to see if this is the true faith of the Christian church.

This man has spent many years studying, I agree with him in everything he believes as does the congregation. He has never spoken out against anything Lutherans believe and should not be treated as one who knows nothing about the sacrament or the Lutheran faith.

A pastor is wrong when he condems a man's faith before first hearing it. 1 Cor 13 tells us that love is, it rejoices in truth. To refuse to hear a man's confession of faith shows me that this pastor is not a lover of the truth, but is the lover of keeping the peace with man.

Part of Christ's institution of the the pastoral office:
Matthew 18:18, "Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You are making some very strong accusations against me (whom you don't even know) and against your own pastor. It is obvious that you do not have a clear understanding of the teaching of the Lord's Supper and of communicant membership in the LCMS. I would suggest that you do a bit more studying before you make such blatant and slanderous accusations again.

I will continmue to stand by God's Word on the matter because that is what I am called to do. God's word clearly teaches that right recpetion of the Lord's Supper involves both a clear understanding of the nature of the Sacrament (what we are receiving and why) and also a common confession of faith to assure fellowship with the altar.

We as pastors are called to keep the right reception of the Sacrament intact. This is what your pastor is doing. I'm sure that he has a reason for doing it the way he is. (Have you asked him why he is doing it this way? Perhaps you should before making such slanderous accusations.) And I think that it shows a complete lack of respect for those whom God has called into that office and given that responsibility to make judgements based upon something that you simply don't understand.

 

[porterross]

I am wondering as well if you and others in the congregation are condemning your pastor without truly understanding his position on the matter. Obviously you've discussed it with the man being told he must receive instruction, but how much of your pastor's true position is known to you?

At what point do you submit your trust in the pastor's office? Do you truly believe he is going to tell you every detail and area of concern in regard to others under his pastoral care? Would you want him discussing his concerns about you with others in the congregation if he did indeed have them?

One of the key aspects of communion for me personally is the submission to Christ at the altar through those administering the body and blood of Christ to me. It is a very intimate experience and knowing that the pastor knows my heart and common confession is a bond that keeps it close.

Don't we want this for everyone communing with us? Don't you trust that your pastor also wants to KNOW that his congregation has been properly instructed? Isn't that his responsibility? If he allowed one person to become a communicant member without the same instruction that everyone else has been required to previously, it sets a bad precedent and opens him up to ridicule and possible issues with the district, does it not?

Try to see things from your pastor's perspective and allow him the respect he deserves. If he were practicing open communion, how upset would you be? The man has a duty and he likely has knowledge or concerns in this matter of which you are not aware. You must trust him and the office he holds or it is of little value.

 

[QuiltAngel]

No pastor has the right condem a man's faith and heart before first listening to his confession.

I think I see part of what is happening here. What makes you think the Pastor is condeming a man't faith and heart?

Just becasue he wants all who want to join the church to take a confirmation class to join a church does not mean he is condeming a man's faith and heart.

 

[DaRev]

It's not the taking of any classes that is the issue. It's the assurance that the pastor has, as steward of that which has been entrusted to him by God, that all who partake at the altar in which he has been called by God to serve are truly able to receive to their benefit, both personally (their personal relationship with God, which no doubt this individual has) and commnunally (their relationship with each other through the common confession and fellowship, which is the real issue in this instance). That does not at all equate to abuse of authority, but proper application of that authority entrusted to him by God.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Walther quotes Luther here to prove that lay people, not only the clergy, are to judge doctrine for themselves in their own church. In other words, the final right to decide what doctrine is correct and incorrect in the church belongs to the church members, not the clergy, not the denomination, or any other group.

"Again Christ says, Matt. 7:15: ‘Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’ Behold, here Christ does not give the judgment [of doctrine] to the prophets and teachers but to the disciples, or the sheep; for how could they beware of false prophets if they should not consider, judge, and pass an opinion on doctrine? . . . The third passage is that of St. Paul, 1 Thess. 5:21: ‘Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.’ Look, here he does not want any doctrine or ordinance to be kept unless it is first proved and approved by the congregation which examines it, for this proving is not the business of the teachers, but the teachers must first declare what is to be proved. So also here the judgment is taken away from the teachers and given to the disciples among the Christians, so that among Christians the matter is totally different from the way of the world. In the world rulers command whatever they desire and subjects obey them. However, as Christ says, it should not be so among you; but among Christians everyone is a judge of the other, and again he is also subject to the other. Nevertheless the ecclesiastical rulers have turned Christendom into a secular government. . . . In sum, what need is there for more passages? Every warning that St. Paul puts forth, such as Rom. 16:17, 18; 1 Cor. 10:14; Gal. 3:4, 5; Col. 2:8, and elsewhere, as also all declarations of the prophets teaching us to avoid the doctrines of men, do nothing but take all right and power to judge doctrine from the teachers and give it to the hearers, earnestly commanding this at the peril of their souls. Thus they [the hearers] not only have the right and power to judge everything that is taught but also must do this at the peril of the wrath of the divine Majesty." (Reason and Cause from Scripture that a Christian Communion or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Doctrine, 1523. X, 1797-1800; SL X, 1538 ff.)

Elsewhere Luther writes: "The seventh and last office [of the congregation] is that of judging and discerning all doctrine. Certainly it is not for the trivial reason that these priestly hypocrites and painted Christians have arrogated this office to themselves; for they well knew that if they left this office to the congregation, it would happen that they would keep none of the offices mentioned above. If the right to judge doctrine is taken from the hearers, what may or dare not a doctor or professor teach, even though he be much worse than the devil, if such a thing were possible? On the other hand, if the judgment [of doctrine] is left or commanded to the hearers, how could a professor dare teach anything [false] though he were more important than an angel from heaven? If it were permitted [that only the priests had the right to teach], Paul would not rebuke Peter only, but he would condemn even the angels from heaven. No doubt the popes and councils would have spoken and legislated with much more respect and fear concerning the priesthood, the public ministry, and such functions as baptizing, blessing, binding, praying, and judging doctrine had they been obliged to fear the judgment and condemnation of the hearers. Indeed, the papacy would never have become what it is had this doctrine [concerning the hearers’ right to judge doctrine] prevailed. . . . Here stands the Word of Christ, Matt. 23:2, 3: ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works, for they say and do not.’ What else does Christ teach us in this and other similar sayings of the Gospel and the whole Bible (by which we are admonished not to believe false teachers) than that everyone personally take measures for his salvation so that he may know and be sure what he should believe and whom he should follow? Similarly also that every believer is a free and authorized judge of all those who desire to teach him and that he is inwardly taught solely by God, John 6:45. Not the doctrine of another will condemn or save you, whether it is false or true, but solely your faith. Let anyone teach or preach whatever he desires, you must consider what you believe either for your harm or for your benefit." (Letter to the Council of Prague, 1523. X, 1853-1855; SL X, 1585-1587)

C.F.W. Walther, The Form of the Christian Congregation, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, combined edition 1989, pages 98-101.

 

[DaRev]

But who teaches them the doctrine?

 

[QuiltAngel]

Confess,
How old is this young man? I have a feeling we are not being told everything here. I got to thinking that if he has another year of classes he may be a young one.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Not only is it received from the Law and Gospel sermons but also from reading the Bible. If peopl don't read the bible then how do they know how to judge that the sermons and theology are correct? Gospels of Peter and Timothy both go into great detail about warning against false teachers. We'd be derelict in our lay duties if we didn't have the bible to help us judge the wolves in sheep's clothing. Look what has happened in our own synod because the laity isn't equipped with spiritual knowledge. Reformed theology is running rampant and the people can't see the problem becasue the "saints arn't equipped". The pastors in great numbers are falling prey to this nonsense and the only ones that can uphold the faith is the congreation (church)

Paul gives this advice to all christians, not just pastors.

2 Timothy 3
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Walther’s book "Church and Ministry" is filled with quotations from the Bible, Luther and the Lutheran Confessions that support his order for the congregation. It can be purchased from Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis. However, CPH no longer keeps Walther’s "True Form of the Christian Congregation" in print. Wonder why? Some excerpts for Walther's "True form of the CHristian congregation"

"The keys belong to the whole church and to each of its members, both as regard their authority and their various uses."

"On the other hand, the church can be recognized through concrete signs such as the preaching of the word, the distribution of the sacraments, the confession of faith, and even the bans."

"...the assembly of the church is visible for the sake of the confession of faith." Rom.10:10

"Luther charged the congregation with the exclusive responsibility to call and to ordain ministers."
​

 

[DaRev]

Proper knowledge of the Scriptures requires proper catechesis. Otherwise, one would read and draw their own conclusions about certain things... and who would be right?

Who's teaching regarding baptism is correct, Baptists or Lutherans (both of whom base their teaching on Scripture) They cannot both be correct because they are diametrically opposed.

Who's teaching regarding the Lord's Supper is correct, Reformed or Lutheran?

Who's teaching regarding justification is correct, Roman Catholic or Lutheran?

In order for the laity to have the tools necessary to hold to the true doctrine, they need to know what the true doctrine is first. This requires proper catechesis and strong encouragement to remain in their study of the Word. And this falls upon those who are called and ordained with that responsibility.