Communion Question

[C.F.W. Walther]

Pieper warns on Romanizing.

…taught a strongly Romanizing doctrine of the ministry, namely, that the office of the public ministry is not conferred by the call of the congregation as the original possessor of all spiritual power, but is a Divine institution in the sense that it was transmitted immediately from the Apostles to their pupils, considered as a separated "ministerial order" or caste, and that this order perpetuates itself by means of the ordination.
​

In addition to being a return to Rome, this type of ecclesiology raises other concerns. For one thing, placing the Office of the Pastor into a "ministerial order" or caste that perpetuates itself through the Sacrament of Ordination undermines the Doctrine of Justification.

The imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to every believer places every believer in the highest possible position before God. There can be no caste system.

In addition, our present ecclesiology distinguishes the role of the missionary from the role of the pastor for good reason. If a man goes into an area and does the work of a missionary and gathers a body of believers together, he dare not presume that he is automatically their pastor. They are not HIS people even though he brought the Gospel to them. To be the pastor, the people must call him.

This error is the root cause of the formation of cults. People are not called to a "Holy Father," they are called to the Lord Jesus through the Gospel. The founders of the Missouri Synod understood the dangers of this system. They had their fill of the likes of Martin Stephan.

http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/dgm00001.htm

 

[porterross]

Laity are not qualified and cannot fulfill the duties of those ordained, Rad. If we could, what's the point of the seminary Walther was so instrumental in establishing?

*********************************

From Blomenberg's, A Pastor's Perspective (also see Role of Laity) in LCMS Convocation Documents found here:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=506

It is not the church that has determined that it needs “professionals” to be able to work efficiently. It is not because people are too busy that the church needs to have some chosen to fill the office of the ministry. The Scriptures say that God gave some to be pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11-13): It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be
evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service,
so that the body of Christ may be built up....”​

Within the context of the church, God’s creation, Scripture is clear in teaching two supportive doctrines--the office of the public ministry, and the priesthood of all believers. Luther said, “All are priests, yet not all are pastors” (Luther’s Works, Am. Ed., vol. 13. p. 65). Walther said, “The holy ministry, or the pastoral office, is an office distinct from the priestly office, which belongs to all believers.” (The Ministry, Theses 1,2,6)​

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, it is the pastor’s charge to preside. The easiest part of presiding is to speak the Word’s of Institution and to distribute the elements. Presiding also means the pastor is charged with seeing to it that there are opportunities for celebrating the Lord’s Supper frequently; is responsible for admitting to the Supper those eligible to partake, having been instructed and examined so that they are repentant, confess that the physical body and blood of Christ are present, and are united with the church in the confession of faith.​

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Laity are not qualified and cannot fulfill the duties of those ordained, Rad. If we could, what's the point of the seminary Walther was so instrumental in establishing?

*********************************

From Blomenberg's, A Pastor's Perspective (also see Role of Laity) in LCMS Convocation Documents found here:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=506

I didn't say that the laity are qualified to do the duties of the ministry. I said that the laity responsibilty was ordained by God to hold the keys and transfer them to qualified pastors called by God and then monitor the pastors activity to make sure there is no herersy. But the problem has been the romanizing idea that permeates the LCMS that the pastors are CEO and that no one else is qualified to make discisions on anything in the church. Even the elders. Because the people havn't proper catechesis then their knowledge is overwhelmed by the romanisque idea that is being fostered in the LCMS.

 

[DaRev]

I didn't say that the laity are qualified to do the duties of the ministry. I said that the laity responsibilty was ordained by God to hold the keys and transfer them to qualified pastors called by God and then monitor the pastors activity to make sure there is no herersy. But the problem has been the romanizing idea that permeates the LCMS that the pastors are CEO and that no one else is qualified to make discisions on anything in the church. Even the elders. Because the people havn't proper catechesis then their knowledge is overwhelmed by the romanisque idea that is being fostered in the LCMS.

Which, BTW, is advocated in Fort Wayne.

 

[porterross]

There must be balance and a system of checks. In the instance Confess has presented, it seems the elders have no issue with the pastor's requirement of catechism for all new members.

Our pastors have superior theological knowledge in comparison to most of us and they have a fiduciary duty to uphold. We respect this just as they must respect the congregation in return. It must be a harmonious relationship, but that doesn't mean it should be expected to be simple for anyone. We are human after all.

If a pastor is erring on the side of control in a manner that exceeds his office, the congregation has remedies available, do they not?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

If you don't believe that the LCMS is fostering romanisque views then look at the Ablaze movement that brings the pastor out of his original "call" to the call of a CEO where the elders and the laity have no powers giving to them through the keys. These people have been delude because the pastors have not porperly educated them in their roles and therfore have relinquished their role as a "church". That's what happens when pastors have too much power. The laity is lost in a coorporation and not in the church anymore.

Surely this does not apply to all pastors and it wasn't meant to be.

 

[DaRev]

Let it be known that I am not at all a supporter of Ablaze.

But just how does Ablaze bring a pastor out of his call?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

You know what is involved in a call so why don't you tell us what is involved in one? Doesn't the call require the minister to the public preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments.? If he's advocating anything other other hierarchy than what Walther, the bible and Luther says then he is taking away from his call. You allready know what Luther and Walther say about it. If a minister sees that the focus isn't on what he should do in his call then he should mentioned that to the body.


So therefore I think it is wrong for a pastor to violate his call to attempt to "sneak" a new ecclesiology past theologically ignorant lay people. It is deception if he begins functioning as the "Head" over the congregation or refers to himself as "Father" when the people in the pews have no idea what is happening. This is wrong! According to Mundinger, this was the method of Martin Stephan. He writes:

For years Stephan had adroitly manipulated this doctrine so that very many of the colonists were of the firm conviction that Stephan was their chief Means of Grace ("Hauptgnadenmittel") [head grace mediator] and that outside, and apart from, him there was no hope.​

 

[DaRev]

You know what is involved in a call so why don't you tell us what is involved in one? Doesn't the call require the minister to the public preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments.? If he's advocating anything other other hierarchy than what Walther, the bible and Luther says then he is taking away from his call. You allready know what Luther and Walther say about it. If a minister sees that the focus isn't on what he should do in his call then he should mentioned that to the body.



So therefore I think it is wrong for a pastor to violate his call to attempt to "sneak" a new ecclesiology past theologically ignorant lay people. It is deception if he begins functioning as the "Head" over the congregation or refers to himself as "Father" when the people in the pews have no idea what is happening. This is wrong! According to Mundinger, this was the method of Martin Stephan. He writes:

For years Stephan had adroitly manipulated this doctrine so that very many of the colonists were of the firm conviction that Stephan was their chief Means of Grace ("Hauptgnadenmittel") [head grace mediator] and that outside, and apart from, him there was no hope.​

I will repeat the question I case you didn't understand the first time.

But just how does Ablaze bring a pastor out of his call?

You're the one who brought it up. Don't expect me to answer it. I'm asking you to explain your statement.

 

[LilLamb219]

Rad, are you trying to say that Ablaze advocates a pastor becoming a "boss" of the church instead of being the servant?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Obviously you didn't read the post and you're trying to be diffucult. I did explain what it meant. So you might as well go argue with Walther and Luther and the bible because I'm not responding to your post anymore. You're avoiding all quotes from church fathers and the bible so if you ignore them them then you have to deal with it.

 

[Confess]

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.

I understand what you are saying and I concure up to the point that no pastor should reject a man from confessing his faith to him. This is my relative who could not join until now. He has been under our tutalage for 9 years sitting at our table during family devotions as we taught him the faith and brought him to church.

 

[Confess]

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.

Yes, I have made a strong accusation against you for supporting a pastor who rejects listening to a man's confession of faith.

Just as I do not assume things about you without you first telling me where you stand, neither should a pastor make an assumption about a man's faith without examining him first.

 

[Confess]

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.

In the same light, at what point do you see a pastor err and do something about it?

It is wrong not to listen and only assume.

 

[Confess]

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.

Well, if you have studied ... lets say ... English Literature, and you desire to go to college for some sort of field.

Colleges will not force you to take English Lit. all over again but will examine (test) you to check your knowledge and understanding. If you pass, then you don't have to attend another class, if you fail, then you do have to attend the class.

That seems fair. Yet, I find it very disturbing that in this thread as well as in the Lutheran church, many refuse to give the same respect to those who have spent years learning the faith.

This tells me how little a man's confession really means. This also tells me that the Lutheran church is backing away from her confessions which state:

Who, then, receives this sacrament worthily?
Answer: Fasting and bodily preparation are a good external discipline, but he is truly worthy and well prepared who believes these words: “for you” and “for the forgiveness of sins.” On the other hand, he who does not believe these words, or doubts them, is
unworthy and unprepared, for the words “for you” require truly believing hearts. (SC VI, 9–10; Tappert, 352)

The above requires examination.

Genuine faith includes faith in the Eucharist itself, namely, that there the true body and blood of Christ are offered to all and are received orally together with bread and wine by all who eat and drink. All who commune should hold to this teaching.

Luther in the Large Catechism introduces the article on the Sacrament of the Altar with these words:

As we treated Holy Baptism under three headings, so we must deal with the second sacrament in the same way, stating what it is, what its benefits are, and who is to receive it. All these are established from the words by which Christ instituted it. So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and go to the sacrament should be familiar with them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come. (LC V, 1–2; Tappert, 447; emphasis added)

And

The Small Catechism says, “...but he is truly worthy and well prepared who believes these words: ’for you’ and ’for the forgiveness of sins’”
(SC VI, 10; Tappert, 352; emphasis added). Luther, author of both Catechisms, teaches that the faith that enables one to commune worthily includes faith that believes in the scriptural doctrine concerning both what the Eucharist is and the benefits that it offers. One final citation from the Large Catechism helps to show that this is the case:
So far we have treated the sacrament from the standpoint both of its essence and of its effect and benefit. It remains for us to consider who it is that receives this power and benefit. Briefly, as we said above concerning Baptism and in many other places, the answer is:

It is he who believes what the words say and what they give. . . .

But he who does not believe has nothing, for he lets this gracious blessing be offered to him in vain and refuses to enjoy it. The treasure is opened and placed at everyone’s door, yes, upon everyone’s table, but it is also your responsibility to take it and confidently believe that it is just as the words tell you.
This, now, is the preparation required of a Christian for receiving this sacrament worthily. (LC V, 33, 35–36; Tappert, 450)

As you can see, our confessions require pastors to know the confessions of a man before admitting him to the Lord's Supper. If this person was heard and found to need more work, then I would be satisfied. But to never listen to this person's confession and assume that he hasn't the understanding is against our confessions.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Rad, are you trying to say that Ablaze advocates a pastor becoming a "boss" of the church instead of being the servant?

I'm not sure where it comes from but it is becomming "status quo" in a very large amounts of LCMS churches. I've visitied many in my travels and they all advocate corporate hierarchy where the pastor is basicaly the CEO, the elders as "yes men" and the laity who don't have voting priviledges. If anybody thinks I'm kidding then just see is your church constitution has changed in the past few years.

I know Jeusu First has advocated it for years but I'm not sure if it's part of PLI or Ablaze.

 

[DaRev]

 

[QuiltAngel]

Confess, how old is the "young man?" Why are you avoiding answering this? As I said, if he is to study for another year, I am suspiscous that we are talking about a teenager here, which may mean he is to be going to catechism classes with the rest who are his age.

 

[synger]

You know what is involved in a call so why don't you tell us what is involved in one? Doesn't the call require the minister to the public preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments.? If he's advocating anything other other hierarchy than what Walther, the bible and Luther says then he is taking away from his call. You allready know what Luther and Walther say about it. If a minister sees that the focus isn't on what he should do in his call then he should mentioned that to the body.


So therefore I think it is wrong for a pastor to violate his call to attempt to "sneak" a new ecclesiology past theologically ignorant lay people. It is deception if he begins functioning as the "Head" over the congregation or refers to himself as "Father" when the people in the pews have no idea what is happening. This is wrong! According to Mundinger, this was the method of Martin Stephan. He writes:

For years Stephan had adroitly manipulated this doctrine so that very many of the colonists were of the firm conviction that Stephan was their chief Means of Grace ("Hauptgnadenmittel") [head grace mediator] and that outside, and apart from, him there was no hope.​

I'm confused now.. are you saying that Ablaze! is advocating that pastors give up their call to Sacrament and Word? I've read some of the Ablaze! stuff and went to last summer's district conference on it. I don't agree with all of it, but I didn't notice pastors being told to just be CEOs. That's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Or are you talking about the Ablaze! focus on personal evangelizing, thus telling the laity to preach the Word?

Can you clarify for me? I'm still new to this whole thing, and trying to understand. I know my Pastor doesn't like Ablaze! because he thinks it focuses on "decision theology". But if there's something more I'd like to know.

 

[synger]

I know that the fact that my husband's work schedule hasn't allowed us to take the church classes was a major stumbling block for us for a time. Pastor gave us the workbook, but we couldn't attend the class. My impression from him was that the class is not just to teach the doctrines and history (though that is its primary purpose), but to provide a place where people can ask questions, be tested in the depth of their knowledge, and grow into an understanding of what it means to be a member of this particular congregation, as well as the whole community of faith. It's where Pastor gets to know how you understand the doctrines we confess and teach.

We studied for years on our own, too. But part of that study was during adult Sunday School classes that Pastor taught, where we participated in the discussion with others. He had a fairly good sense of where we were doctrinally. And when we were asked by the elders to teach a history class for adult Sunday School, our first thought was "We're not even Lutheran yet! You trust us to teach your people?" and the answer was "we've seen how much you understand of our beliefs, and how respectful of them you are. This is not a doctrine class, but a history class, which is your strong point... so yes, we'd like you to teach it." And we did (finding out as we went on that half our class were actually elders in the church)

I guess I'm telling you this because I understand the frustration of thinking you understand the doctrine, and studying it on your own, and then, in our case, not being able to attend the class where that knowledge and understanding can be tested and grown so that Pastor is satisfied that we are in the place where we can rightly join the church. The class is how our church -- pastor and elders and congregation -- have set up to do this. Even life-long Lutherans have to go through confirmation classes to become members of the church. It's rare that there is an exception.

In our case, there will be an exception. We just can't attend the class. Hunter's schedule does not allow it. In a case like this, Pastor CAN examine us separately (and has) and will make an exception.

But unless your friend is UNABLE to attend the classes (which I haven't heard mentioned), or there is some other reason why he cannot follow the prescribed method of joining the church, I don't understand why he thinks he should be allowed to bypass them. Especially if they are part of the congregational requirements to become a member.

It's kinda like boot camp, in a way. A person can be really physically fit, and have worked out a lot on their own. But in boot camp you don't just focus on fitness, but on testing that knowledge and being evaluated under various conditions by an expert in the field.

You go into the confirmand's class as a seeker, and you come out not just knowing Lutheran doctrine, but with a fuller understanding of Lutheran thought and history. The Pastor and the other confirmands have gotten to know you, and you them. And at the end of the class, you can say that you have been fully informed of what it means to be not only Lutheran, but a member of this particular congregation. Only then, fully informed, can you make a choice as to whether to join the church.