serving Communion... Can we go over this again please?

[PreachersWife2004]

There's a clique in the church and either you fit in or you don't. Its a small church. There has been other stuff that's happened in the past year to me, its just not the one thing with her. Other people left too cause of the clique and things that happened to them. Before the pastor left average attendance was between 100 to 125, now they are lucky if they have 50 there on a sunday. Visitors come maybe once or twice, then they don't come back. I could post everything on here but it would take to long

I seem to recall that you've mentioned some of the difficulties you've been having at this church. Who is that told you you had to stay put, the pastor at your parents' church or the layguy at your own?

At this point in time, I guess I would just start going to another church and not bother with transferring your "membership". No pastor in his right mind is going to tell you not to come to church there, and if one does he's obviously wrong.

 

[DaRev]

The reason I bring this subject up is a warning to not regress back to the problem that was addressed with our synod with CFW Walther and what brought LCMS about. This was the problem with episcopy that Stephans brought over with the Saxon Lutherans and was very abused in Germany. It is totally what could have swayed the course of the synod in the 1800s and we would be more like the RCC or EO if it hadn't been nipped at the bud.

My reaction, as many hold in the synod, is seeing this episcopy reemerging. It might be seem as an extreme reaction but it needs to be addresses. Maybe it is a rebound action to the resolution 8-01a that synod passed at the 2004 convention which states widespread changes in the “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution,” process virtually removes the right of a congregation and pastor to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings, so that this right now rests solely at the discretion of the district presidents and the synodical president. Basicly removing the right of the "CHURCH" to judge doctrine. The church is the congregation and not synod.

This resolution makes some pastors think that they are not solely responsible to the congregation but only to the synod. Hence the regression back to a hierachy of episcopy. The PLI program makes this feasible since it promotes the pastor as the head of the congregation as a CEO and the laity are just yes-men.

I'm not trying to downgrade the pastors. Notice I didn't say the Office of the Ministry. I realize that the "call" is legitimate from God but there has to be a balance between laity and pastor with the pastor not getting an upper hand. Whether there is abuses brought on by congregations is really not the point. The point is that if we are to be the church we need to do what the Bible says about the pastoral office and have the laity more educated in the Word. Then there won't be these abuses by either the pastor or the laity.

Pastors are obviously more educated in theology and need to pass this down to the laity to be able to judge doctrine. I just see that is hasn't happened much in the last century. The pastors have gone along with synod in certain aspects because it gives them more of the feeling of being in control. Look at any convention, conference or circuits and you will see pastors and synod members hob-knobing with each other like they are the ones that should have the total say so in church polity. I'm not saying this happens all the time but the "good ol boy" syndrome is very prevalent. Many of the laity convention delegates have been swayed because they haven't been taught except by only what the pastors views are. That can be one sided with an agenda.

Be careful not to throw your umbrella over everyone, as you are so in the habit of doing.

You are right that many in the laity have not been properly catechized. That is a huge problem. But until such time as we can break the hold that many of them have on false doctrine, we cannot allow the pastorate to be held captive by those who want things done their way and not the way of the Scriptures and Confessions. If that were allowed then Lutheranism as we know it would have ceased to exist long ago. There needs to be some recourse in place for clergy who are held at bay by uneducated and hostile laity. Some one has to stand for orthodoxy in the Synod and in most cases it's not the laity.

A massive re-education needs to be done within the LCMS.

 

[RadMan]

Be careful not to throw your umbrella over everyone, as you are so in the habit of doing.

You are right that many in the laity have not been properly catechized. That is a huge problem. But until such time as we can break the hold that many of them have on false doctrine, we cannot allow the pastorate to be held captive by those who want things done their way and not the way of the Scriptures and Confessions. If that were allowed then Lutheranism as we know it would have ceased to exist long ago. There needs to be some recourse in place for clergy who are held at bay by uneducated and hostile laity. Some one has to stand for orthodoxy in the Synod and in most cases it's not the laity.

A massive re-education needs to be done within the LCMS.

Actually if you look closer I use phrases like "some, many, a few, certain". These lend more to being "non inclusive".

I honestly do see the pastors predicament and it is a catch 22 in the congregation. But then the pastor falls into the trap of seeking protection from the synod and it justifies the situation as being tenable to him. As I've said before it's a rebound reaction brought on by synod's abuses and we sometimes overshot the mark with over-statements.

 

[ctay]

I seem to recall that you've mentioned some of the difficulties you've been having at this church. Who is that told you you had to stay put, the pastor at your parents' church or the layguy at your own?

At this point in time, I guess I would just start going to another church and not bother with transferring your "membership". No pastor in his right mind is going to tell you not to come to church there, and if one does he's obviously wrong.

The interim pastor did, he's the pastor of another LCMS church in the area, the pastor at my parents church is trying to get me to come there, only thing he sent a card to my parents house for me wanting me to come to a new member class (My mom lost the card). I don't know why I would have to go, I used to be a member there before I transfered to the other church.
Everythings that happened has been unexpected, me standing there with my mouth dropped open.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The interim pastor did, he's the pastor of another LCMS church in the area, the pastor at my parents church is trying to get me to come there, only thing he sent a card to my parents house for me wanting me to come to a new member class (My mom lost the card). I don't know why I would have to go, I used to be a member there before I transfered to the other church.
Everythings that happened has been unexpected, me standing there with my mouth dropped open.

Perhaps the pastor just doesn't understand your current situation. I would call him, ASAP. The interim "pastor" has no right to tell you where you can go to church. If nothing else, were you to start going to your parents' church, you would be a member of the other church in name only.

I've put you on my prayer list. Sounds like you and your church could use them.

 

[Studeclunker]

The interim pastor did, he's the pastor of another LCMS church in the area, the pastor at my parents church is trying to get me to come there, only thing he sent a card to my parents house for me wanting me to come to a new member class (My mom lost the card). I don't know why I would have to go, I used to be a member there before I transfered to the other church.
Everythings that happened has been unexpected, me standing there with my mouth dropped open.

An interim pastor's job is to be a peacemaker. He needs to get the various warring camps in a congregation all on the same page, as it were, and working together. They usually try to knit the congregation back into a whole. Sadly, the only way to deal with a wayward congregation, for a member, if one isn't part of the 'good ol boy's club' is to leave. Have a talk with the pastor of the church you wish to attend, Ctay. He wants you to take the class to ensure you remember what Rad and the Revrand have been discussing here. It's highly likely that it's the congregation's policy that all new members take the class. If you can demonstrate your knowledge of scripture, doctrine, and (Lutheran) theology, he will exempt you from the class.

So what you're saying, Rad, is that the congregation in Redding is acting properly in allowing this layman to distribute and preside in the communion service?

I must admit that the episcopalian (form not denom.) system has it's advantages. Such as if a Pastor is out of line the congregation has someone to dicipline him. Yet, in the absence of an episcopy, is it not the congregation that can call a Pastor back into line? There is a serious risk, though, in our modern, ignorant, times with a liberal, ignorant, congregation. Such as the one in Redding. They seem to want to move more in a... reformed direction. ie: creative liturgy, laymen presiding over and distributing communion, etc... I have seen what this kind of liberalism can do to an LCMS congregation. They deteriorate to a 'community-type' church. All vestiges of the Lutheran service and doctrines slowly evaporate. It's very disconcerting to me, when visiting churches to find a home, to see such an attitude of indifference in the history, doctrines and theology of the Lutheran denomination. The whys and wherefores if you will. Hence, many congregations attempt to re-package our denomination to the greater population in such a way that we're beginning to evaporate the Lutheran core of our belief system.

I'm also between a rock and a hard place here. This is the only LMCS church in the area. I can't just go to another church. There isn't any. I do have the option of a WELS church in Anderson (an additional ten miles on top of a thirty-five mile commute). I however, find the WELS to be a bit too conservative for me. Also, I don't want to change denominations. Yet, I would find it much easier to live with over-conservativism than liberalism. Ah, the 'isms, they get-cha every time.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

In our experience in the WELS, the synod has done a very good job of "modding" pastors and congregations. Yes, they've made some bad judgment calls, but then so have congregations. Not too long ago a congregation tried in vain for over a year to get its pastor to teach the correct doctrine. They finally had to involve the synod, and the synod had to counsel the church to rescind the pastor's call. The church then took a vote, and the majority voted to rescind. So it was still in the church's hands...but the synod needed to know that this guy wasn't preaching true doctrine.

 

[Studeclunker]

<snip>You are right that many in the laity have not been properly catechized. That is a huge problem. But until such time as we can break the hold that many of them have on false doctrine, we cannot allow the pastorate to be held captive by those who want things done their way and not the way of the Scriptures and Confessions. If that were allowed then Lutheranism as we know it would have ceased to exist long ago. There needs to be some recourse in place for clergy who are held at bay by uneducated and hostile laity. Some one has to stand for orthodoxy in the Synod and in most cases it's not the laity.

A massive re-education needs to be done within the LCMS.

<snip>I honestly do see the pastors predicament and it is a catch 22 in the congregation. But then the pastor falls into the trap of seeking protection from the synod and it justifies the situation as being tenable to him. As I've said before it's a rebound reaction brought on by synod's abuses and we sometimes overshot the mark with over-statements.

You know, it seems to me that there are programmes in place in the Concordia University system that provide for Elder education. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the church to provide this to their elders. These people are the leaders of the congregation and if they're ignorant, where's the leadership going to go? We have an excellent pair of seminaries and a woeful lack of education for the laity.

So, back to the original subject: Revrand, Pastors, et. all, should laymen, even Elders, preside over and serve Communion?

From what I've seen so far, the answer is a qualified yes. What say you?

 

[dinkime]

to me there is a difference in presiding and serving -- to me, the person who presides is the one at the altar saying the Words of communion -- that is a Pastor's job


at our church the Pastor says everything and the president of the congregation assists with the distribution (saying no words) -- the Pastor distributes the bread, then the president follows with the tray of individual cups, if you take the small cup you wait for the Pastor to step by while distributing the common cup for those who choose it...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

to me there is a difference in presiding and serving -- to me, the person who presides is the one at the altar saying the Words of communion -- that is a Pastor's job


at our church the Pastor says everything and the president of the congregation assists with the distribution (saying no words) -- the Pastor distributes the bread, then the president follows with the tray of individual cups, if you take the small cup you wait for the Pastor to step by while distributing the common cup for those who choose it...

Yep, that's how it goes at our church, too. It really only comes into play at my old church, where there are two pastors and over 200 taking communion on any given Sunday.

 

[DaRev]

So, back to the original subject: Revrand, Pastors, et. all, should laymen, even Elders, preside over and serve Communion?

From what I've seen so far, the answer is a qualified yes. What say you?

I would say no. The confessions say that one should not teach in the church nor administer the sacraments unless he be rightly called. Laymen (which elders are) are not rightly called into the Office of the Public Ministry and therefore should not be presiding over the Service of the Sacrament.

Elders or Deacons (lay assistants) may assist the Pastor in the distribution. While distributing the elements of the Sacrament are indeed part of the administration of the Sacrament, it does not constitute "presiding". The authority to distribute comes from the authority given the pastor as the one who is called into that office to carry out that function. And since the distribution is a function of the pastoral office, only men should assist the pastor with the distribution.

 

[RadMan]

In our experience in the WELS, the synod has done a very good job of "modding" pastors and congregations. Yes, they've made some bad judgment calls, but then so have congregations. Not too long ago a congregation tried in vain for over a year to get its pastor to teach the correct doctrine. They finally had to involve the synod, and the synod had to counsel the church to rescind the pastor's call. The church then took a vote, and the majority voted to rescind. So it was still in the church's hands...but the synod needed to know that this guy wasn't preaching true doctrine.

I know that is the standard procedure in WELS but is that the rule or the exception? Maybe you could ask seajoy what happened in a previous WELS congregation. Seems the the local district catered to a totally heterodox congregation and even apologized to them for interfering when they fired the pastor. Who, from heresay, was a totally confessional/conservative pastor who never violated his call.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I know it happens from time to time. One of our member's son-in-law got dealt a raw deal from his district president. He and his senior pastor basically did not get along...the older guy was practically heretical in his teachings, and the congregation ended up being split between the two pastors. Rather than punishing the heretical pastor and making him quit, the district president allowed him to an early retirement while forcing "Paul" to resign. The wife of the heretical preacher made the life of Paul's wife practically unbearable. And that's just scratching the surface. One example of this church's rudeness is that they gave Paul six months to live in the parsonage, and then 30 days into the 6months told him he had a week to move, because the new pastor was coming and he needed a house. Let's see...the new pastor was a single guy coming from seminary, and Paul had a wife and three kids. Who needed the house? Anyway...

The synod, in an effort to "fix" what the DP had done, allowed Paul's CRM* status to remain intact even though he had resigned (policy usually dictates that you can't get your CRM status back for a year when you resign). That way, Paul was able to get a call quicker than he would've. In the end, Paul was glad that he wasn't forced to stay at that congregation, where the majority didn't care for him, but his family is STILL paying the financial and mental toll of that crap.

This is the exception, though. Most of the time when the synod comes to help, even at the district level, it is for the good.


*CRM status is just a pastor's ability to preach from the pulpit, and his ability to receive a call. When CRM status is revoked, a pastor cannot receive a call until it is reinstated.

 

[ctay]

I had a problem with the layperson, he went through the Delto program serving communion, I never went up and took it from him when its been his turn to preach. I just feel a pastor should do it.

 

[WildStrawberry]

I have to say that my congregation is VERY VERY lucky to have, not only our current Pastor, but also our Pastor Emeritus and a retired Pastor as part of the congregation. If Pastor F. can't be there, either Pastor Emeritus D. or Pastor R. (ret) preaches and all that's involved.

Kae

 

[Studeclunker]

Revrand, you mentioned that the Confessions say, "one should no teach in the church nor administer the sacraments unless he be rightly called." Which confessions are you speaking of? Is this the small confession? If so, I need to get another copy. See, the whole reason for this thread is that I wish to speak to the pastor of this congregation and ask why they are doing this. He is the appointed shepherd. Therefore he should have an answer for me. Still, I don't want to go before this man looking like an ignorant dolt. Very embarrasing that. :o

So, I need to find the source of the information needed to confront the situation. Which books should I request to see and or argue from? Confronting these people is going to be difficult enough let alone without the tools necessary. I suspect this fellow (that is presiding in the Pastor's absence) has impressed the congregation with his knowledge and godliness. Therefore, if I'm going to challenge him in any way I need to have my ducks all in a line. After all, I'm not yet a member of the congregation. That's the reason for this thread.

 

[BigNorsk]

It's in the Augsburg Confession, Stude.

See the thing is, the guy you are questioning has been called. He was called by the church. The church is the congregation in the LCMS, not the synod, or at least it's supposed to be.

There is no biblical command for a minister to have a college degree. Yet, he should be apt to teach which does certainly imply that he is not clueless but knows his doctrine. Of course one isn't expected to be perfect, seminary graduates certainly aren't, but the good ones continue to learn throughout their lives.

Anyway, the LCMS has their nonseminary route to the office of ministry. They've been revising that some and working with it.

One thing that confuses people is that the way they do it, they have the person perform in the office of public ministry for quite a long time before they undergo the rite of ordination. It seems like be a pastor for years and if you stick to it, then we will recognize you. I don't like that, it confuses people.

But there are other things. For instance, that person can only serve in the office of public ministry in that one particular situation. They are enrolled differently and so on.

It sets up a dynamic where these guys are ministers, but not real ministers.

Anyway, the fellow is called by a congregation, the congregation has not violated their agreement with the synod and so on.

On what basis would you deny him the use of a title "Reverend"? That the bishops haven't shown up and conducted the rite of ordination? The rite which is an adiaphoron that simply ratifies the call?

The call is the important thing, the rite of ordination no so. I think your difficulty in understanding is that you have somehow flipped that or at least made the rite of ordination more important than it is.

Marv

 

[RadMan]

LCMS link on ordination. I'm not sure if this is up to date since the Delto program seems to have gone by the wayside.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/print.asp?print=1&NavID=11593&path=%2Fpages%2Finternal.asp


Also your comment of "licensing" is interesting Marv, or is that what you were referring to?

 

[RadMan]

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=m&word=MINISTERIALOFFICE

Ministerial Office.
1. The office of the ministry is a divine institution. Scripture distinguishes bet. the office of the ministry and the royal priesthood*. All Christians are priests (1 Ptr 2:9; Rv 1:6), but only some hold the office of the ministry. The Bible speaks of the latter in various terms (e.g., overseers, ministers, pastors, teachers, deacons, elders), indicating the scope of the office (Acts 20:28; 1 Co 4:1; 12:29; Eph 4:11–12; 1 Ti 3:1–2, 8–13; Tts 1:5). The office of a minister is not a continuation of the priesthood of the OT, nor does it consist in certain rights and powers vested in the Apostles which only they and their successors could and can confer on others, nor is it conferred indelibly on any individual by ordination (see Character indelebilis). Christ continues His prophetic office through the work of the ministry; those who are called by Christian congs. or groups of congs. are Christ's undershepherds, Christ Himself being the one Lord and Master (Mt 23:8; 1 Ptr 5:4). The means of grace (see Grace, Means of) were given by God to the ch. God calls certain men through his Church to administer them for the cong., thus making them ministrantes inter Christianos (“those who minister among Christians”). The ch. has the obligation to carry out the commission of Mt 28:19–20 and may create whatever other offices are necessary.
2. Some distinguish bet. the ministerial office in abstracto (Predigtamt; ministry) and in concreto (Pfarramt; pastorate). Some Lutherans influenced by the 17th century fathers and the pietism of Philipp Jacob Spener* maintain that AC V speaks of the ministry in abstracto: “In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted.… Our churches condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.” These same theologians maintain that AC XIV speaks of the ministerial office in concreto: “It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call.”
Luther, with Scripture, distinguishes between the priesthood of all the baptized (royal priesthood) and the ministers who, according to Matthew 28 and John 20, not seen as opposing Matthew 20, serve the Church in the Stead of Christ by His mandate for the blessing and benefit of God's people. If the ministers do not serve the Church by proclaiming the Word in purity and the Sacraments according to Christ's mandate they are to be deposed as antichrists and God's people, as priests, are given to call another minister.
3. Pastors properly called by congs. are shepherds of their flock acc. to God's will (Acts 20:28; Tts 1:5).
4. God provided that His work be done through chs. (e.g., Acts 2:41–42, 47; 20:28). The apostles were inspired; ministers are not; but the apostles made no distinction bet. themselves and pastors as far as the work of the ministry is concerned, but spoke of pastors as having the same duties (2 Ti 2:2; 1 Ptr 5:2), the same authority (Heb 13:17), performing the same service (1 Co 3:5); and regarded them fully as their fellow ministers (1 Co 3:22; 4:1; Cl 1:7; 1 Ptr 5:l).

Comment added from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod
This should clear up whether the Office of the ministry is a divine right. Ordination is seen as a public ceremony of recognition that a man has received and accepted a divine call, and hence is considered to be in the office of the ministry. The LCMS does not believe ordination is an extension of an episcopal form of apostolic succession but sees the office grounded in the word and sacrament ministry of the Gospel, arguing that Scripture makes no distinction between a presbyter (priest) and a bishop (see Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, paragraphs 63,64, citing St. Jerome). The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Article XIII) explicitly grants that ordination can be considered a sacrament, only if interpreted in relation to the ministry of the Word. The Augsburg Confession (Article XIV) holds that no one is to preach, teach, or administer the sacraments without a regular call.

5. Two elements have been distinguished in the call to the ministry. One is the inward conviction urging the individual to enter the ministry. The other is the call, the invitation from God through the ch. to specific pub. ministry in the ch. Ordination usually follows the 1st call received and accepted.

 

[DaRev]

The point is that the LCMS has guidelines that member congregations are to follow. These guidelines are in conformity with the Scriptures and Confessions even though congregations sometimes operate outside of them. One thing that is required of member congregations is that their pastors be certified by the synod to be called into the pastoral office of a member congregation. A layman may be "called" by the congregation (it is their right to do that) but it is being done outside the guidelines of the synod. If a congregationdoesn't want to follow the guidelines of synod then they should leave the synod membership, or be removed by synod.

This is one of the BIG problems I have with DELTO/SMPP or whatever it's being called these days. It puts men into pastoral roles with no training or formation whatsoever. I have seen first hand what is happening in some of these congregations where men are placed as "pastors" but haven't the aptitude for the office. They are teaching false doctrines and are confusing people. It is truly a sad situation for the synod.