Communion?

[skypair]

As to the link…

The purpose seemed to be to give communion more meaning .. to update it .. to make it more exciting. The congregation was practically demanding it. So I believe that some of the tenets of the doctrine were untethered from their foundations in scripture to make them more acceptable to men.

I think that is a very dangerous thing to do, circuitrider. Tradition, experience, and reason are what got the Catholic church in trouble and that led to other denominations of just as lost people as the ones who stayed with them. I mean, sure, you can build a church around it .. but is it still the church of Christ?

skypair

 

[RomansFiveEight]

As to the link…

The purpose seemed to be to give communion more meaning .. to update it .. to make it more exciting. The congregation was practically demanding it. So I believe that some of the tenets of the doctrine were untethered from their foundations in scripture to make them more acceptable to men.

I think that is a very dangerous thing to do, circuitrider. Tradition, experience, and reason are what got the Catholic church in trouble and that led to other denominations of just as lost people as the ones who stayed with them. I mean, sure, you can build a church around it .. but is it still the church of Christ?

skypair

Skypair, a couple of things.

1) Once again, this is the Methodist forum. This isn't the forum for theological debate, per se. There's some wiggle room for discussion; but you're literally arguing the fundamental, foundational theologies of Methodism. You're not discussing little things here; you're barking up the tree of Methodisms foundation. Your sort of theology is the kind that if you were a candidate for Ordained ministry they'd likely tell you "We feel God is calling you elsewhere", a nice way of saying "Your theology does not fit here. At all."

That's not a criticism, I'm glad you are firm in your beliefs and are willing to defend them. But understand we are firm in our beliefs as well; and perhaps no firmer a belief do we have, that we all agree on, that binds us in unity; than the way we understand the Bible. It's what makes us Methodists.

From the Christian Forums Rules:

Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for orthodox Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in the Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion forum.

Secondly, all people uses lenses of some kind to interpret the Bible. Some just lie to themselves about it and claim to be looking "only at Scripture" and taking it literally; but they are certainly using their own knowledge and experience when interpreting scripture. The fact is, United Methodist view the Bible in a very specific way. An authoritative, important book; that is not simplistic. It must be interpreted and understood; through the lens of the Word of God (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; which is promised to be our advocate in helping us to understand the scriptures. We trust that the Holy Spirit has always been at work; so tradition makes a lot of sense. We trust that the Holy Spirit affects our minds that God gave us, so Reason makes a lot of sense. And we trust that the Holy Spirit has always been at work in and around our lives in some capacity; so our own experiences must make sense.

 

[GraceSeeker]

As to the link…

The purpose seemed to be to give communion more meaning .. to update it .. to make it more exciting. The congregation was practically demanding it. So I believe that some of the tenets of the doctrine were untethered from their foundations in scripture to make them more acceptable to men.

I think that is a very dangerous thing to do, circuitrider. Tradition, experience, and reason are what got the Catholic church in trouble and that led to other denominations of just as lost people as the ones who stayed with them. I mean, sure, you can build a church around it .. but is it still the church of Christ?

skypair

I really don't think that is what is happening at all. We can hardly give communion more meaning than Christ himself already did. But, it seems clear that you differ from our Wesleyan understanding of the meaning behind Holy Communion.

And you know what? That's OK. We aren't all made the same way, and I believe that God's kingdom is big enough to allow for the sort of differences that we are identifying here.

I also think that another one of the differences that we really haven't address much yet in this thread has to do with our different understandings not just of the meaning behind and being expressed in communion, but also with regard to the line in 1 Corinthians about receiving communion in an "unworthy" manner. I have found that Lutherans have a unique twist on that passage which is different from what I think is the plain sense of the passage and now it appears that you do as well. I have wanted to delve into that discussion, but unfortunately haven't been able to in the past, nor do I have the time for it today. My fear is that by the time I get around to being able to really address it the way I want to (you know, sometime after Advent, Christmas, end of the year reports, Lent, tax filings, Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost, Annual Conference, moving season, Charge Conference, the annual stewardship campaign, and Thanksgiving), everyone will have moved on and I will have forgotten about it.

In the meantime, I truly thank-you for your questions. I don't mind them. I don't think anyone else really does either. They just reflect a different way of thinking that we actually have considered, but have come out at a different place. Indeed, to our Wesleyan mindset, it is hard to imagine how anyone could examine the scriptures and not agree with where we have arrived. But, then again, that is what makes us Wesleyans and not Baptists or Lutherans or something else. And, I hope you will agree that that can be OK, too.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I really don't think that is what is happening at all. We can hardly give communion more meaning than Christ himself already did. But, it seems clear that you differ from our Wesleyan understanding of the meaning behind Holy Communion.

And you know what? That's OK. We aren't all made the same way, and I believe that God's kingdom is big enough to allow for the sort of differences that we are identifying here.

I also think that another one of the differences that we really haven't address much yet in this thread has to do with our different understandings not just of the meaning behind and being expressed in communion, but also with regard to the line in 1 Corinthians about receiving communion in an "unworthy" manner. I have found that Lutherans have a unique twist on that passage which is different from what I think is the plain sense of the passage and now it appears that you do as well. I have wanted to delve into that discussion, but unfortunately haven't been able to in the past, nor do I have the time for it today. My fear is that by the time I get around to being able to really address it the way I want to (you know, sometime after Advent, Christmas, end of the year reports, Lent, tax filings, Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost, Annual Conference, moving season, Charge Conference, the annual stewardship campaign, and Thanksgiving), everyone will have moved on and I will have forgotten about it.

In the meantime, I truly thank-you for your questions. I don't mind them. I don't think anyone else really does either. They just reflect a different way of thinking that we actually have considered, but have come out at a different place. Indeed, to our Wesleyan mindset, it is hard to imagine how anyone could examine the scriptures and not agree with where we have arrived. But, then again, that is what makes us Wesleyans and not Baptists or Lutherans or something else. And, I hope you will agree that that can be OK, too.

Well said, Grace Seeker and thanks for the reflection.

 

[circuitrider]

As to the link…

The purpose seemed to be to give communion more meaning .. to update it .. to make it more exciting. The congregation was practically demanding it. So I believe that some of the tenets of the doctrine were untethered from their foundations in scripture to make them more acceptable to men.

I think that is a very dangerous thing to do, circuitrider. Tradition, experience, and reason are what got the Catholic church in trouble and that led to other denominations of just as lost people as the ones who stayed with them. I mean, sure, you can build a church around it .. but is it still the church of Christ?

skypair

No Skypair, actually the Wesleyan view of the sacrament of communion comes directly from our Anglican roots, quite ancient roots. The service and liturgy of communion we follow has antecedents back into the earliest centuries of the Church.

Methodist churches sacramentally are much more in line with how communion was practiced in the early church than what I see happen in most Baptist churches. Baptist churches, which also spun out of the Anglican Church as a puritism, chose to reduce the liturgy and worship of the church to its bare bones thinking that such matched New Testament forms of worship. In other words, Baptist ways of worshipping is a reaction in the 17th century to already existing forms of worship, not the older format found in the Anglican Church is spun out of.

Also, do please be careful whom you call "lost." Until God makes you the judge of the lost, you verge on the sin of declaring believers in Christ to not be believers just because we have personal doctrinal differences.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

No Skypair, actually the Wesleyan view of the sacrament of communion comes directly from our Anglican roots, quite ancient roots. The service and liturgy of communion we follow has antecedents back into the earliest centuries of the Church.

Methodist churches sacramentally are much more in line with how communion was practiced in the early church than what I see happen in most Baptist churches. Baptist churches, which also spun out of the Anglican Church as a puritism, chose to reduce the liturgy and worship of the church to its bare bones thinking that such matched New Testament forms of worship. In other words, Baptist ways of worshipping is a reaction in the 17th century to already existing forms of worship, not the older format found in the Anglican Church is spun out of.

Also, do please be careful whom you call "lost." Until God makes you the judge of the lost, you verge on the sin of declaring believers in Christ to not be believers just because we have personal doctrinal differences.

Some of the earliest communion liturgies known to man were a great deal of time ago declared sacred but unusable by the Roman Catholic Church, because it didn't invoke the Trinity in some way. (While it's not common in the USA; some of the RCC's oldest churches, along with Assyrian and Greek Orthodox churches, often used liturgies that are hundreds of years old instead of the modern liturgies. But there are rules about which ancient liturgies can be used and which have been declared heretical) That's because the liturgy is so old; it existed before the Church had fully understood the trinity! (As best we know, the Trinity emerged about the 4th century. Though Christians had a basic grasp, it wasn't until then that someone finally articulated the relationship between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Obviously, that's a deeply scriptural belief. But it goes to show that it can take a while, 300 years even, before Christians fully grasp what has already been in scripture!)

And yet, this nearly 2000 year old liturgy bears many resemblances to our modern liturgies used today!

 

[GraceSeeker]

it can take a while, 300 years even, before Christians fully grasp what has already been in scripture!

That's a very good point!!

One of my pet peeves has become the ubiquitous, "scripture clearly says...." statement. I figure if scripture really was that clear, then we wouldn't have so many disagreements over its interpretation.

I guess that gets us back to being unaware just how much we see things through a lens, indeed very shaded lends I would suggest, and how much that shading colors what we see and therefore don't understand why others can't see exactly what we do.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That's a very good point!!

One of my pet peeves has become the ubiquitous, "scripture clearly says...." statement. I figure if scripture really was that clear, then we wouldn't have so many disagreements over its interpretation.

I guess that gets us back to being unaware just how much we see things through a lens, indeed very shaded lends I would suggest, and how much that shading colors what we see and therefore don't understand why others can't see exactly what we do.

I agree. On rare occasion, I'll come close to that statement, with a statement like "It seems very obvious to me", when talking about scriptural concepts. But of course; usually framed in the quadrilateral! For example, "It seems obvious to me that the prophet in Isaiah intended for the readers..." etc.

 

[skypair]

Skypair, a couple of things.

OK, understood. Are you on any other forums here where you debate the issues we are discussing? I mean that, if this is only what you believe on here, it's kind of like an "echo chamber" isn't it? Who would be willing to discuss who wasn't a "Yes man?" Applauding you? Is there anyone who would come here that would learn anything?

skypair

 

[skypair]

And, I hope you will agree that that can be OK, too.

Yeah, that's OK. Communion is not a salvation issue (unless you see it as having some salvific value). Communion is an issue of sanctification — things that make us understand God better and help our relationship with Him once we are saved. But in that, it is good to really understand its meaning.

Bottom line: Communion is not something that we mold to our purposes. There are "givens" and they are from God. We ought to acknowledge and glorify God and thank Him in it (Ro 1:21) and not "become vain in our imaginations" ;est we move entirely away from God's will.

skypair

 

[RomansFiveEight]

OK, understood. Are you on any other forums here where you debate the issues we are discussing? I mean that, if this is only what you believe on here, it's kind of like an "echo chamber" isn't it? Who would be willing to discuss who wasn't a "Yes man?" Applauding you? Is there anyone who would come here that would learn anything?

skypair

I didn't make the rules here. Actually, where I've been asked to help make rules (on other similar sites and Facebook groups); they've been less strict. I was simply pointing those rules out for your own benefit.

So; there are issues we do debate and discuss here. Issues that aren't solidified in our theology. That's the purpose of THIS forum. There are other parts of Christian Forums where Baptists and Methodist (and Roman Catholics and Charismatics for that matter) can duke it out on issues like Communion. But the idea when this was all laid out, was that there would be a place for fellowship and discussion within a group of people with a general set of core beliefs. Skimming over the forum, we've discussed John Wesley (the founder of the Methodist movement) and his faith in God (where it grew and even points where he felt he had lost a connection with God; maybe even didn't believe in God, at one point in his life). We've discussed human sexuality, we've discussed worship types and techniques. We've discussed Christian authors and we've discussed things like the system for appointing Bishops, the General Conference, and local church leadership. We've discussed the sort of issues we wrestle with, and no; we didn't all agree on a lot of those things (though some were more discussion than debate). Those issues I might have a firm belief, and someone else might have a different firm believe; and we can still call ourselves 'Methodist'. But on a select handful of things; Communion being one of them; there actually is a belief that defines a Methodist, and what you're suggesting Communion is, is in conflict with that.

And we went several pages discussion the quadrilateral, reading of scripture, and communion with you. There was PLENTY of discussion. And truth me told, I'm fine with more. As long as you're willing to recognize that there are issues we aren't going to falter on. Some things just aren't up for debate. I'm sure you'd discuss Jesus with a person who came to you and wanted to talk to you about Mohammad. But, you wouldn't change your position, right? There's only so much 'open mind' you can have. And I want to be honest with you, and respect you enough as a person to not give you some false belief that there's any 'wiggle room' on these certain issues. Frankly, there are certain things we as Methodist believe as very very much true, that really aren't up for debate. Discussion? Of course! Debate? Not so much. Truly, to tell a genuine Methodist that scripture should be taken literally or that Communion is not what "This Holy Mystery" says is akin to telling a Methodist or any other Christian that Jesus is a false prophet and God isn't real. These are just essential. We believe them very, very firmly. They are what defines us. And unlike some Christians, for the most part; most of us don't feel the need to convince YOU of what you believe. You're working out your own salvation with "Fear and trembling" as some might say; and that's what matters to me. You know God, you love God; and you desire your relationship to Grow. So I'm not worried about you. I'm more worried about those who think that a prayer alone has saved them or that God can't or won't save them. But it seems to me that you are intent on changing our minds about certain theologies. I could keep debating you or leading you on, but that's not fair to you. What's fair to you is to bring it out in the open that those issues simply aren't up for debate. They simply are truths to us.

It also seems that we're going in circles. You're repeating the same points; we're repeating the same points. And I think, as smart as you are, and as smart as guys like Graceseeker and Circuitrider are, we can be spending our time learning and growing; rather than repeating and circling. Wouldn't you agree?

Sometimes, as they say, it's just time to let a sleeping dog lie.

 

[skypair]

No Skypair, actually the Wesleyan view of the sacrament of communion comes directly from our Anglican roots, quite ancient roots. The service and liturgy of communion we follow has antecedents back into the earliest centuries of the Church.

Right — Catholic church, right? That's why you call it "sacrament."

Methodist churches sacramentally are much more in line with how communion was practiced in the early church than what I see happen in most Baptist churches. Baptist churches, which also spun out of the Anglican Church as a puritism, chose to reduce the liturgy and worship of the church to its bare bones thinking that such matched New Testament forms of worship. In other words, Baptist ways of worshipping is a reaction in the 17th century to already existing forms of worship, not the older format found in the Anglican Church is spun out of.

Here's what I have learned about that: With the coming of the Reformation, there were groups of the faithful who did not agree with Catholicism or Calvinism who met and held their own "unauthorized" communion and baptism. Unauthorized? With both, these "stepchildren of the Reformation"* baptized and held communion only with born again believers. That is, they didn't believe anyone was saved by baptism and they didn't believe that communion conferred grace in any sense of the understanding of the Word. This is pretty much the inheritance of the Baptists .. you're right. The Methodists pretty much went along with the Arminians who went along with the Reformers on these things who went along with the Catholics.

You know, if this thread is really about communion and not about Methodism, let's get to the bottom of it, eh?

* Good reference on this is "the reformation and their stepchildren" by Leonard Verdun. We studied this book on line at zolaboard. It is an older book but still available in used book space.

skypair

 

[GraceSeeker]

You know, if this thread is really about communion and not about Methodism, let's get to the bottom of it, eh?

Oh, this thread? You want to know what *THIS* thread is about? This thread is in response to a United Methodist who wanted to know if it was a sin to miss communion.

We address that question long ago, and have been willing to humor you and your questions ever since. But, as for what this thread is about, it is about meeting the spiritual needs of another member.

 

[skypair]

Oh, this thread? You want to know what *THIS* thread is about? This thread is in response to a United Methodist who wanted to know if it was a sin to miss communion.

We address that question long ago, and have been willing to humor you and your questions ever since. But, as for what this thread is about, it is about meeting the spiritual needs of another member.

I'm sorry, guys. I guess I'm not being helpful. Since I've been in a Methodist men's fellowship for 5 years now and studying the Bible with them, I hadn't run into so much animosity surrounding any of the issues we discussed. I was even thinking about joining the church. But apparently, in reality, it's a pretty tight theology and not at all as open as I thought.

skypair

 

[circuitrider]

I'm sorry, guys. I guess I'm not being helpful. Since I've been in a Methodist men's fellowship for 5 years now and studying the Bible with them, I hadn't run into so much animosity surrounding any of the issues we discussed. I was even thinking about joining the church. But apparently, in reality, it's a pretty tight theology and not at all as open as I thought.

skypair

Skypair, in some ways UMC theology is very open. But it isn't open to becoming non-Methodist, Calvinist, or Baptist. We aren't going to change our fundamental beliefs.

The funny part is that often people accuse us of being theologically loosy goosy. But we do indeed have specific beliefs about free will, the sacraments, and grace among other things that are at the core of our faith.

We aren't going to change those because someone from the outside (even a nice well meaning someone) has other views.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Again, Skypair, it doesn't mean you aren't welcome. Frankly, I'm not sure what animosity you are experiencing. We see your point of view, we understand your point of view; we disagree with your point of view. And that's not going to change. You're discussing a fundamental, solidified issue for us. We're happy to discuss it, I just want to own the fact that on this one; we aren't open to change. Not on this issue.

 

[circuitrider]

Again, Skypair, it doesn't mean you aren't welcome. Frankly, I'm not sure what animosity you are experiencing. We see your point of view, we understand your point of view; we disagree with your point of view. And that's not going to change. You're discussing a fundamental, solidified issue for us. We're happy to discuss it, I just want to own the fact that on this one; we aren't open to change. Not on this issue.

Exactly RomansFiveEight,

I also don't believe there is any animosity here for Skypair. I hope he does not take unwillingness to abandon our faith understanding as animosity.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm sorry, guys. I guess I'm not being helpful. Since I've been in a Methodist men's fellowship for 5 years now and studying the Bible with them, I hadn't run into so much animosity surrounding any of the issues we discussed. I was even thinking about joining the church. But apparently, in reality, it's a pretty tight theology and not at all as open as I thought.

skypair

Your theology and that of your brothers in Christ as the Methodist men's fellowship where you have been study probably is very much the same. I've been a UMC pastor the length of the state of Illinois (a pretty long state stretching from Boston to south of Richmond in length) and I can tell you that the farther south one goes the more and more the theology of your average Methodist layperson looks and sounds just like their SBC neighbor. By the time you get to Texas there may be no difference even among the clergy.

Also, you're going to join a local congregation. If you're comfortable there, you're comfortable there, and that really should be the main factor.

But there most certainly are some differences between United Methodist theology and Southern Baptists theology. If there wasn't they wouldn't need those "Quiet" signs in heaven for those who believe that they are the only ones right enough to make it.

But even recognizing these differences, the truth is you just happen to be hitting on those issues that are key to us. I'm part of an ecumenical ministry in our community where we have joint Bible studies, youth groups, and lots of other activities together. That group includes United Methodist, Presbyterian PCUSA, Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, Roman Catholic, Mennonite, a non-denominational congregation, and Southern Baptist. And we get along just fine. We recognize that there are some of these differences, but on the whole we have a lot more in common than we do separating us. We find that the only problem comes when we major on the minors rather than on our unity in Christ.

 

[skypair]

But there most certainly are some differences between United Methodist theology and Southern Baptists theology.

It has been my observation that what divides churches and denominations is the very critical issue — How are we saved? It's almost as if we all look to Christ but are saved by the church.

So ecumenicism would be saying that it doesn't matter how we are saved, right? That's what the Catholics and Evangelicals tried to practically dismiss when they came together a few years ago.

Does it matter how we are saved, GS?

skypair

 

[circuitrider]

Does it matter how we are saved, GS?

skypair

You are asking the wrong question friend. The question is "who gives us the gift of salvation?"

If you know God through Jesus Christ "how" is in God's hands. The rest is just human theories. Remember John 3:16?

There isn't a single scripture which says, "thou shalt believe the right theory of salvation and thou shalt be saved."

The gospel is They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ Acts 16:31.

Everything else, Calvinism, Arminianism, etc. is just human ways to try to explain what God does. Believe on the Lord Jesus. That's it.