Communion

[Lutheran021342]

I have three friends from three different LCMS churches who all occasionally attend an ELCA church near their college (there is not a LCMS church for miles). These three have very different approaches to involvement with the church and communion with them. The first follows what I would consider the traditional approach and attends service but refuses communion. The second takes communion but has made several comments how the second wishes there were LCMS churches within traveling distance. The final not only takes communion but assists in the distribution and service. I know I am poorly informed, but I was under the impression that the first was the accepted choice. Am I more confused than curious?

 

[DaRev]

I have three friends from three different LCMS churches who all occasionally attend an ELCA church near their college (there is not a LCMS church for miles). These three have very different approaches to involvement with the church and communion with them. The first follows what I would consider the traditional approach and attends service but refuses communion. The second takes communion but has made several comments how the second wishes there were LCMS churches within traveling distance. The final not only takes communion but assists in the distribution and service. I know I am poorly informed, but I was under the impression that the first was the accepted choice. Am I more confused than curious?

The first one is correct. Since we are not in altar fellowship with the ELCA, we are not to commune with them. The other two are practicing outside of their fellowship. Perhaps they weren't properly catechized.

 

[twin.spin]

I have three friends from three different LCMS churches who all occasionally attend an ELCA church near their college (there is not a LCMS church for miles). These three have very different approaches to involvement with the church and communion with them. The first follows what I would consider the traditional approach and attends service but refuses communion. The second takes communion but has made several comments how the second wishes there were LCMS churches within traveling distance. The final not only takes communion but assists in the distribution and service. I know I am poorly informed, but I was under the impression that the first was the accepted choice. Am I more confused than curious?

I wouldn't say confused or curious ... but maybe more aware now of the effects when any church body tolerates false teaching and their teachers(pastors) who do the "catechized-ing". Though not perfect, this sort of give credence to the WELS structuure of oversight practice vs the LCMS structure.

For I'm sure those shepherds who were doing the incorrect catechized-ing didn't just suddenly appear without anybody's knowledge.. be that other shepherds or congregational members.

Jeremiah 23:1
“Woe to theshepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD.

Ezekiel 34:2
“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?

 

[bach90]

I couldn't even recommend attending an ELCA service, let alone communing there.

 

[Shane R]

It may not be so much an improper catechesis as it is an ecumenical spirit. Then again, I have seen LCMS churches where the communion statement is buried somewhere in the bulletin and not really utilized, nor the closed communion practiced, during the service.

 

[DaRev]

It may not be so much an improper catechesis as it is an ecumenical spirit. Then again, I have seen LCMS churches where the communion statement is buried somewhere in the bulletin and not really utilized, nor the closed communion practiced, during the service.

That's because the LCMS is afraid of disciplining errant congregations.

 

[twin.spin]

It may not be so much an improper catechesis as it is an ecumenical spirit. Then again, I have seen LCMS churches where the communion statement is buried somewhere in the bulletin and not really utilized, nor the closed communion practiced, during the service.

Where does one learn of the Biblical teaching of of fellowship in order that one follows the correct ecumenical spirit of "close" communion if not during the catechesis?

Thus who does God hold responsible for those who are teaching and then subsequently practicing incorrectly... does God only hold the specific shepherd doing it, or does the net of accountability extend to those other shepherds who know and are afraid?

Paul certianly was not afraid when he confronted Peter. Did he do that at the risk of of being considered "sticking his nose in someone else's congregation"?