How open should we be?

[AngelusSax]

Basically, an open-ended question, but I am more specifically thinking of communion. How open should our communion be? Some people, especially of other synods, obviously think it is too open now (probably even too open since we allow our own members to take communion without recanting all the ELCA ever has been or currently is, but I digress...). Others, perhaps within or even without our synod, may feel it's not open enough.

Where do we draw the line? What should be the point where we say to someone "perhaps you should not take communion today"?

 

[JoeCatch]

We should erect no barriers whatsoever to allowing anybody to partake of the Lord's Supper, except in the case of church discipline. Even then, I'm not certain that a ban from the table is the most proper means of discipline; I suspect that in almost all cases, it is not. Surely there is absolutely no sound reason for restricting communion to those with whom we are in full doctrinal agreement. We should practice precisely the sort of open commensality that Jesus himself did.

 

[Willy]

On Christmas Eve I had a woman bring forth a young man whom she identified as Muslim. Can he receive communion, she wanted to know. I am intrigued by those who are arguing that the table is for some the experience of grace that invites them into faith. I had a woman in a new members' class argue this. She wanted to know why baptism is necessary for the reception of communion. All I could say was that this is the church's tradition. One is welcomed into the family and then eats with the family. I never felt that this response was adequate. I was taken by her argument.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Any baptized Christian who comes forward should receive. I would not feel comfortable giving it to an unbeliever who was open about that because to some extent we have to recognize eating and drinking unworthily can be harmful (although I will note that the unworthy manner Paul spoke of involved eating before everyone was there to partake). If the person is not baptized but does believe they can, but if I were the pastor of that church and an unbaptized person came forward in faith, I would then want to talk to them about baptism and the graceful gift it is.

I would prefer if we had a public declaration (either in writing or verbally) of what we confess the Lord's Supper is and its purpose, to educate the congregation and allow them to judge themselves before coming as Paul talks about. The church leadership has a responsibility to teach what a graceful thing communion is, but except in extreme circumstances of discipline the decision to partake should rest on the individual. But if we do not invite examination, if we do not teach our doctrine on communion, on the real presence, on the means of grace, on desiring the forgiveness being the only necessary preperation we fall short in our responsibility I think.

The other issue is children partaking. I'm not fully convinced one way or another, since I understand reasons for both. Here I think parents and sponsors should be expected to take up a larger role since they have a responsibility towards the spiritual development of those children and their baptismal identity before confirmation when they take on that responsibility unto themselves.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

I agree, we need to invite examination. I also agree that, for the most part anyway, the decision to come forward and partake of Jesus should rest with the individual after said examination. A public delcaration of the exact doctrine of the Real Presence would go a long way to inviting that examination. I've seen visitors at my congregation deny themselves communion because they did not believe as we do concerning the Sacramental Union. As much as I firmly believe that it would have been grace they received had they taken (because Christ is faithful to His promise regardless of our understanding of specific doctrines), that was fine and their right.

As for children, I am a proponent of letting children partake in communion. My congregation has recently moved to allowing children under age 13 (our typical confirmation age) to take communion (though they do have to express desire and some understanding that this isn't just something we do to take up time and eat leftover bread or something). Once, we had a young girl, probably 6 or 7 (before we began allowing younger communicants) who came back up to the altar after she and her family had left, saying her grandpa didn't get Jesus yet. (He is in a wheelchair, so the pastor must take the elements to him as the altar is not handicap accessible). The pastor smiled. This girl knew something of Real Presence by her statement, and yet she was not allowed, due to age, to commune? That changed soon thereafter.

 

[JoeCatch]

For those who have pointed out the need for examination, what sort of examination do you have in mind? What are we examining ourselves for? What are we looking for in those self-examinations?

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Examination is a time to look at why they are taking the sacrament, and what they believe it to be. The church should profess what this is and allow the people to decide if they believe that, if they wish to partake in that. But as I said the church as in many places abandoned any teaching or proclamation on this and people do not know why the sacrament is open to them, what it is, what the point is, etc.
Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

Examination is a time to look at why they are taking the sacrament, and what they believe it to be.

Um... ditto. As an addendum, the person should decide if they believe themselves to be a sinner or not. If the answer is that they are (which it IS, but sometimes people don't admit it to themselves), then they need to know that it is for sinners this sacrament is given, lest anyone feel unworthy to partake because they are not "holy enough".

 

[Big Mouth]

I agree, we need to invite examination. I also agree that, for the most part anyway, the decision to come forward and partake of Jesus should rest with the individual after said examination. A public delcaration of the exact doctrine of the Real Presence would go a long way to inviting that examination. I've seen visitors at my congregation deny themselves communion because they did not believe as we do concerning the Sacramental Union. As much as I firmly believe that it would have been grace they received had they taken (because Christ is faithful to His promise regardless of our understanding of specific doctrines), that was fine and their right.

As for children, I am a proponent of letting children partake in communion. My congregation has recently moved to allowing children under age 13 (our typical confirmation age) to take communion (though they do have to express desire and some understanding that this isn't just something we do to take up time and eat leftover bread or something). Once, we had a young girl, probably 6 or 7 (before we began allowing younger communicants) who came back up to the altar after she and her family had left, saying her grandpa didn't get Jesus yet. (He is in a wheelchair, so the pastor must take the elements to him as the altar is not handicap accessible). The pastor smiled. This girl knew something of Real Presence by her statement, and yet she was not allowed, due to age, to commune? That changed soon thereafter.

I disagree with the public declaration part, as I think it would alienate people who agree with the majority of a church's doctrine, but not all of it. Also, someone who is unframiliar with what the declaration actually means won't get much out of it, which is the point of such a declaration.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I disagree with the public declaration part, as I think it would alienate people who agree with the majority of a church's doctrine, but not all of it. Also, someone who is unframiliar with what the declaration actually means won't get much out of it, which is the point of such a declaration.

I think the point of public declaration is not to alienate but educate and proclaim. If the person does not wish to partake because they do not agree/believe that is of their own choice, not alienation on the church's part.
And some may not fully understand it, but I think it would be more responsible than saying nothing personally.

And personally I do not think we should endorse or ignore the declining education of the church in theology and doctrine in addition to the growing crisis of biblical illiteracy. We should be bold and confident in proclaiming what we believe.

Pax