Communion

[Tetzel]

1. I support open Communion during the Communion service, as long as it is stated (or understood) that Communion is open to all baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence in the elements of the bread and wine.

When I was in the ELCA, this bothered me to a great degree. Although I didn't like joint-communion with Episcopalains, at least they seemed to pass this requirement (although they do vary to the extreme and I'd bet that we could find someone, Spong perhaps, to deny the real presence). Presbyterians on the other hand clearly wouldn't qualify.

 

[Tetzel]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

The creeds, at least Nicene and Athanasian, were designed in reaction to heresies. Heresies came out over time and that is why the Nicene creed is a more elaborate version of the earlier Apostles' Creed. As far as I know, theological doctrine denying the real presence of the Lord in communion is a much more recent heresy, and would need an update of the creeds. Some would say that the Confessions are such an update.

 

[KagomeShuko]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

To draw lines other than these when it comes to who is welcome at the Lord's table is arrogant, in my humble opinion.

In Christ, -Cloy

I definitely agree! I feel like if I go to a church that doesn't offer communion to all Christians, they are saying that God's grace is not available to those people

We cannot know the minds and hearts of men. . .only God knows that.

So, insofar as the creeds, that means all who believe in the creeds (and this would mean every single person who posts in the denominational threads here on CF) should be able to receive communion. I fully agree with this. To limit is to limit God. . .and we don't have that right.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[ctobola]

Bridget,

Almost all Christian denominations believe in the "Real Presence." The question is how they define it... and some of them define it as a "real" spiritual connection with Christ (i.e., a memorial service).

For me, that's good enough -- I believe that the Creeds tell us what is essential for inclusion in the Christian community.

Excelsior! -Cloy

I don't have a problem with any Christians at the altar. I understand the "real presence" thing and I believe that, too. However, even those who SAY it is purely symbolic, well, we don't know their hearts. They do believe in Christ, so they are still worthy and like you said WHOSE supper is it?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

 

[Protoevangel]

call me weird...call me liberal...call me whatever...but I always thought that anyone who called upon the name of CHRIST is welcome at the table...this is what scripture says to me...i don't think I'm wrong...

Including the Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses? They "call upon the name of 'CHRIST'", do they not? I think you set yourself at a great distance from the church catholic if you would welcome communion with those who promote these destructive heresies. Exactly how much truth are you willing to sacrifice?

 

[Protoevangel]

Are those groups calling on Christ... or someone/something using the name of Christ?

-Cloy

They would claim it is the same Christ. You claim it is not. Who is right? Is a Christ who fails to keep his word the true Christ? Are those who reject the True Presence calling on the true Christ? Regardless, the question remains... How much truth are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of false unity?

 

[Music4Hym777]

ATTENTION:


From the point where this got into synodical debating, the thread has been moved to the general TC-CL forum, you can continue any opposing synodical view debate, as long as it is civil, in there!

Thank you!
Monica

P.S. ELCAers who would like to discuss the issue among other ELCAers are allowed to still post in this thread.

 

[ctobola]

Great, as soon as the Church (capital C) convenes another council and addresses this, I'll be the first one to support it.

In the meantime, we have what we have and I tend to see it as authoritative -- not just in content, but in scope; and given that it comes from those who were geographically and temporally much closer to Christ's time on earth, I think that's enough.

In Christ, -Cloy

The creeds, at least Nicene and Athanasian, were designed in reaction to heresies. Heresies came out over time and that is why the Nicene creed is a more elaborate version of the earlier Apostles' Creed. As far as I know, theological doctrine denying the real presence of the Lord in communion is a much more recent heresy, and would need an update of the creeds. Some would say that the Confessions are such an update.

 

[Bollman]

My church states in the bulletin that 'all baptized believers are welcome to share renewal at the Lord's Table.'



Two weeks ago I invite my family, all active in my father's Evangelical Free-style church, to come celebrate my one-month-old daughter' baptism. My father refused to come but my mother and sister both came out. At first they baulked at the entire idea of the liturgy and the lutheran order of service as too ritualistic. But as the service passed and they became involved in worship by responsive reading and singing, their hearts changed.



They witnessed our girl’s baptism and our promise to raise her to know Jesus Christ. They let the words of "Borning Cry" settle into their hearts.



Then at the end of the service when it was time for communion, to my surprise they decided to participate. Afterwards they told me that they felt something different, something special at the alter that they had never felt before. I told them that it was the TRUE PRESENCE of CHRIST!!! And not the ritual THEY have been partaking of back at their home church.



For the first time they had shared the experience that I do in worship and communion and now understand why I am a Lutheran. Our open communion allowed for that learning experience.



-B

 

[Lutherrunner]

That is a great story!...thanks for sharing.....

My church states in the bulletin that 'all baptized believers are welcome to share renewal at the Lord's Table.'



Two weeks ago I invite my family, all active in my father's Evangelical Free-style church, to come celebrate my one-month-old daughter' baptism. My father refused to come but my mother and sister both came out. At first they baulked at the entire idea of the liturgy and the lutheran order of service as too ritualistic. But as the service passed and they became involved in worship by responsive reading and singing, their hearts changed.



They witnessed our girl’s baptism and our promise to raise her to know Jesus Christ. They let the words of "Borning Cry" settle into their hearts.



Then at the end of the service when it was time for communion, to my surprise they decided to participate. Afterwards they told me that they felt something different, something special at the alter that they had never felt before. I told them that it was the TRUE PRESENCE of CHRIST!!! And not the ritual THEY have been partaking off back at their home church.



For the first time they had shared the experience that I do in worship and communion and now understand why I am a Lutheran. Our open communion allowed for that learning experience.



-B

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I think that we need to expand ecumenical efforts in relation to communion because:
1) Lutheran theology emphasizes God's word and promise and the individual faith. Thus communing at another church or another member communing with us doesn't change or hurt the sacrament towards us.
2) As long as we (individually and as a church) profess the true presence of Christ and the Forgiveness of Sins to all who believe we are not surrendering anything by welcoming others, but rather encouraging them to partake in this thanksgiving feast we marvel in.
3) I believe Ecumenism supports the supper for what Christ established it to be. I think it is rediculous to believe Christ wanted it to be used as a confessional, devisive practice. We should "drink of it often" and we should welcome all who in their heart decide to come to the feast.
4) The very name "communion" suggests community. If we believe that it is a connection between us, Christ, and the whole of believers, then anyone who we see as being saved we should feel comfortable communing with.
5) Perhaps Luther more than any other Church Father/Reformer is the reason we have closed communion and see it as a confessional statement in many churches today. Both Zwingli and Calvin of the reformed tradition sought fellowship with Luther and the Lutherans and Luther turned them down. The minute we say we think Luther was wrong in his attitude and words toward other prodestants, we are taking up a responsibility to not follow that path but to build a new bridge of fellowship.
6) Ultimately, Paul says that the Church is not to judge who comes to the sacrament, but that each individual should judge themself before approaching. Thus we should allow anyone who approaches to receive communion and if we ourselves feel uncomfortable taking it somewhere else, then it is our responsiblity-not the ELCA or the other church- to say so.
7) The minute we stop striving to find more unity and halt the ecumenical movement, is the minute it has failed and dies. Remember, Paul calls us to find unity and not let divisions rise up among us.
With that said I don't think that means in any way that agreeing to be in full communion should be an excuse to stop talks too. There are doctrinal concerns that we should be continually in dialogue with, regardless as to whether or not we have found common ground already.

 

[paladin_carvin]

I unfortunately have not had time to read up on everything said, but I can state my oppinion on a humble ELCA member.

I'm all for letting non-members take communion. But the thing that needs to be realized is that the Lutheran communion is a 'real' communion, not a symbol. Jesus said that the bread and wine were indeed his body and blood, and the Lutherans recognize this. That is why I do not take communion elsewhere. I think the symbolic communion of the reform theologist are pointless. I can get bread and wine elsewhere and call it a symbol of whatever I want. I think it is important that people taking communion know what they are taking and take it seriously. This is why I disagree with the ELCA's policy of letting children take communion...

Anywho, that's the basics of what I think.

 

[Tetzel]

Honestly, I think that we should not be in fellowship with anyone else but other Lutherans. I think it is insane that we are communion with groups that we dont believe the same doctrine of.

I agree and I would hope that the LCMS and ELCA could agree to joint communion, even if the full doctrinal unity necessary for a merger is missing.

I don't mean to debate here, just wanted to give you a thumbs up

 

[agapelovejoy]

I believe that our policy on open communion is a good thing. When we have believing christains in our church, the last thing we should do is exclude them from the meal which Jesus gave to us and commanded us to do. Communion isn't something that should be exclusive, anyone who believes in Christ should be allowed to the table. I think that closing the door will only push people of other denominations away from us, and what the church really needs is unity, not division and wall. I think this is something which really needs to be prayed about more often.

 

[RayJGentry]

i think the stance of the ELCA should be that we will work with all denominations in the work of the great commission. we however should not enter in to agreements that "prove" how we're willing to work together simply to have an alegiance on paper to prove to people we work well with others. i don't believe that we should have this concept of "full communion." we should simply work with others on issues we see eye to eye, help hold each other accountable for blatent disregard to scripture and on issues of lesser importance we should allow them to practice as we would expect them to allow us. and since this topic is here too, i do believe that open communion is in fact a good thing. whether or not someone who communes in an ELCA church agrees with everything, it's God's sacrament, not ours. i doubt Christ will look down on us for that.