Who should commune?

[AngelusSax]

I know the ELCA's posicy of open communion allows for communion of members of other Christian congregations to participate in communion--at least those denominations which are in some sort of official communion with us. The question here is not whether you like that idea in general or not, but rather:
Who SHOULD commune with us?
​

 

[D.W.Washburn]

My church's stated policy is that those visitors who:

1. have been baptized

2. believe that Christ is present in the Sacrament according to his promise, and,

3. have received their first Communion

are welcome to Commune.

Personally I think that may be a bit restrictive.

 

[RevCowboy]

I know that my policy will be to invite all Baptized Christians who commune regularly in their home congregations. It will be a note in the bulletin and I will announce it.

Technically the policy of the ELCIC and I believe the ELCA is to commune all baptized Christians.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I know the ELCA's posicy of open communion allows for communion of members of other Christian congregations to participate in communion--at least those denominations which are in some sort of official communion with us. The question here is not whether you like that idea in general or not, but rather:
Who SHOULD commune with us?
​

RevCowboy is right. The ELCA's statement "The Use of the Means of Grace" guides our Communion policy.

See it here: http://www.elca.org/worship/worship/sacraments/umg.html

The relevant sections for this discussion are in Part III: Holy Communion and the Christian Assembly.

See especially Principle 37 "The Holy Communion is given to the Baptized" which essentially says that infants and children may receive Communion. Catechesis is encouraged, but Confirmation is not prequisite for Communion (as it was in many places in the past).

Principle 49, "We practice Eucharistic hospitality" essentially says that members of other denominations are to be welcomed at the Lord's table if their conscience allows. We state that we believe in the Real Presence but do not require doctrinal uniformity for participation in Communion.

And Principle 50, "Lutherans long for unity at Christ's table" which allows for Lutherans to participate in Holy Communion in congregations of other denomonations provided conscience allows.

Full Communion means that our clergy can preside at the altar of another denomination and vice versa.

The Use of the Means of Grace is a good statement of the ELCA's Sacramental theology and practice.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I know the ELCA's posicy of open communion allows for communion of members of other Christian congregations to participate in communion--at least those denominations which are in some sort of official communion with us. The question here is not whether you like that idea in general or not, but rather:
Who SHOULD commune with us?
​

Whoever Christ should will- we are not properly the gatekeepers, and I tend to assume that the will to commune is spurred by the Holy Spirit working on the heart of the communicant. I realize I'm out of step with the ELCA on this matter, and in my official capacity I would uphold the policy as it stands. However, I think I am at least in line with the confessions as far as my views on whose authority ought to preside over the communion table. I diverge on the matter of allowing a given person to commune, or not. Since I cannot judge the content of a man's soul, but only Christ, then I conclude that neither am I an appropriate judge of who may approach the table. A person may be drinking to their benefit or they may not, but I cannot in good conscience claim to know as well as my Lord which of these cases is true, and I do not think it divides along neat doctrinal lines. It seems to me that to allow or disallow someone to the table based on their behavior, however it might seem to reflect on their faith, is nevertheless placing them and yourself under the heavy weight of works righteousness. I do not confer the grace administered through the sacraments, therefore neither shall I assume the right to withhold that grace; even if I am convinced that this grace is not being conferred, it does not justify refusing the table to any who come.

 

[UberLutheran]

It's not our table where Communion is served -- it's Christ's table.

Communion is between the individual and God.

"Whosoever will, may come."

 

[Melethiel]

Where's the "other option"? I don't quite agree with any of them.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Where's the "other option"? I don't quite agree with any of them.

You don't need a poll option to state your position.

What do you think?

 

[Melethiel]

I'm not quite sure exactly what I think, to be honest, but I do think restrictions should be set for Baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence.

 

[JoeCatch]

I didn't vote because I'm not sure that any of the responses accurately describe my view. But I do think that, generally, our policy should be that all baptized Christians may commune at an ELCA altar. I don't believe that a Christian whose view on Christ's presence in the sacrament differs from ours does spiritual harm to herself by taking communion.

When Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11 that "all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves," I don't read this as a prohibition against communing those who don't believe as we do in the Real Presence. That just isn't what "discerning the body" seems to mean in the context of this passage. What's going on at Corinth that leads Paul to send them this warning? In what sense are the Corinthians not "discerning the body?" The context suggests that it's not Christ's body in the elements that's troubling the Corinthians, but their refusal to recognize each other as the body of Christ. Paul describes factions among the Corinthians and divisions that lead some to turn the Lord's Supper into their own personal feast while others receive nothing. The use of 1 Cor. 11:29 as a proof-text to support close communion on the basis of sparing other Christians from doing spiritual harm to themselves just doesn't seem to me to be the most obvious reading of what Paul is actually writing about, given the context. If anything, the passage gives me the impression that those who open their altars to all Christians--thus properly discerning the divisionless unity of the body of Christ among us, which is what Paul is actually writing about--are being more faithful to Paul's exhortation here than those who use this text to support close communion.

Likewise the use of Acts 2:44 ("all who believed were together and had all things in common") to support communion only among those in full doctrinal agreement seems to miss the context of the passage. What "all things" is the passage really referring to? Well, just keep reading a little bit! "They would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need" (Acts 2:45). Full doctrinal agreement? No. "All things" here seems most obviously to be referring to actual "things." Stuff. Possessions. Taken at face value, the end of Acts 2 seems to be describing commune life, not close communion.

All baptized Christians (and, with rare exceptions, it is the norm that anyone who is a Christian is baptized) share a common faith even though our propositional expressions of it differ. And we celebrate our unity with each other as the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" when we welcome all who are a part of that one church to Christ's altar that he has entrusted to us through our shepherds (pastors). In a mystical way, sharing the sacrament creates and strengthens that very unity that Christ promised his church. Hence our stated policy should be to welcome all baptized Christians to the altars of ELCA congregations.

Nevertheless, like all policies, this one should not be exceptionless. First, of course, those who are known by the church or pastor to be in unrepentant sin should not be communed. (OK, that's not so much an exception to the policy as it is an addendum to it.) And, no, anything less than full doctrinal agreement with the Lutheran church does not qualify as "unrepentant sin." But the other exception--this one really being an exception--is the usual room left for "pastoral discretion." I have a very good friend who spent many years in the LDS church and, after leaving it, started attending an ELCA congregation and meeting regularly with its pastor. Well, one Sunday she felt moved to come forward and receive communion at the ELCA congregation she was attending. She hadn't been confirmed or officially received as a member (I'm not sure about her baptism and whether she'd had one other than the one she'd received in the LDS), but she received communion that Sunday and to this day describes it as one of the most moving and powerful experiences of her entire life. Yes, "all baptized Christians" is a good policy, probably the best policy, but we must remember never to restrict the workings of the Holy Spirit by our policies. Here's a clear case in which the Spirit was certainly working outside of church policy.

Finally, with the exception of those who are known to be in unrepentant sin, I think that in general anyone who comes forward should be communed. Make the policy--"all baptized Christians"--clear. Put it in the bulletin or inside cover of the hymnal, and make an announcement during the service. At that point, unless the pastor knows of a reason that a particular individual should not be communed, all who have forward have taken it upon themselves to come forward for the sacrament. Having made it clear, based upon what scripture teaches, whom the sacrament is for (i.e., all baptized members of the body of Christ, or, anyone who is a member of the "one holy catholic and apostolic church"), the onus should not be on the pastor as a human being to withhold the sacrament from anyone for lack of recognition or any other reason aside from known unrepentant sin.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

When Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11 that "all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves," I don't read this as a prohibition against communing those who don't believe as we do in the Real Presence. That just isn't what "discerning the body" seems to mean in the context of this passage. What's going on at Corinth that leads Paul to send them this warning? In what sense are the Corinthians not "discerning the body?" The context suggests that it's not Christ's body in the elements that's troubling the Corinthians, but their refusal to recognize each other as the body of Christ. Paul describes factions among the Corinthians and divisions that lead some to turn the Lord's Supper into their own personal feast while others receive nothing. The use of 1 Cor. 11:29 as a proof-text to support close communion on the basis of sparing other Christians from doing spiritual harm to themselves just doesn't seem to me to be the most obvious reading of what Paul is actually writing about, given the context. If anything, the passage gives me the impression that those who open their altars to all Christians--thus properly discerning the divisionless unity of the body of Christ among us, which is what Paul is actually writing about--are being more faithful to Paul's exhortation here than those who use this text to support close communion.

I was once asked to take part in a wedding at which the bride and groom would receive Communion but the congregation would not be invited to partake. The groom's explanation was that he couldn't be sure the congregation would "discern the body" and did not want to be responsible for anyone eating and drinking to their destruction.

I told him that he would be failing to discern the body (which is the Church) and begged off.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I'm not quite sure exactly what I think, to be honest, but I do think restrictions should be set for Baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence.

Whose responsibility would it be to determine if those presenting themselves for Communion believe in the Real Presence?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Joe, I'm interested to learn what you mean by unrepentant sin? I hear this phrase used often by fundamentalists, but you cannot possibly mean it in the same way that they do?

And do you know of a Scriptural precedent for allowing pastoral discretion to dictate the distribution of communion to given individuals?

 

[Melethiel]

Whose responsibility would it be to determine if those presenting themselves for Communion believe in the Real Presence?

Ideally, I think one should talk to the pastor before communing at ANY new church. In practice though, it would probably boil down to a statement, either spoken or in the bulletin, and trusting that people agree with it if they come up.

 

[JoeCatch]

Well, I don't know what fundamentalists mean by "unrepentant sin," but I'm using the phrase to mean pretty much just what it appears to mean at face value. Of course we all sin and, even as we might try to stop, we continue to sin even after being brought to faith. We are, after all, simultaneously saints and sinners. But even as I go on sinning, I recognize my need for forgiveness and pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to sanctify me so that my old desire to go on sinning will diminish.

An unrepentant sinner, on the other hand, is one who seeks to self-justify himself and his actions and who denies his need for forgiveness. Granted, we all sometimes try to self-justify ("I was only doing what I had to do," "I'm still not as bad as ___," etc.), so we do all have bouts of unrepentance. And sometimes we all just sin unrepentantly (for those particular sins, at least) because we just don't recognize that they're sins. A Christian might go consult a tarot reader or something along those lines, just not knowing that we have been instructed to stay away from those things. What sort of unrepentance should bar someone from the Lord's Table, though? First, it must be persistent. Here I have in mind sins that have been brought to the person's attention by the church or pastor, but who defiantly goes on sinning contrary to the warning received.

Yeah, it's often a tough call. But, at the very least, in order to exercise the church discipline of barring someone from the altar, it's first necessary to bring the sin to the person's attention and give him a chance to repent. But if, after having done so, the sin continues, I think that the ban is appropriate. But what if, after the sin has been brought to the person's attention, he still just doesn't see that it's a sin? What if it's a case where both parties (the accuser and the accused) are trying in good faith to live out their calling as Christians, but there's an honest disagreement over whether a particular action is allowed or prohibited by that calling? Some believe that gambling is a sin, others wouldn't bat an eye at a Friday night poker game among friends. Some believe that drinking is a sin, others are Lutherans! Some believe that smoking is a sin, others enjoy a good cigar. Homosexuality, interracial marriage, recreational marijuana use, engaging in civil disobedience, calling female pastors, etc., etc., etc.. In short there are many activities, both great and small, over which faithful Christians disagree. Where that's the case, I wouldn't say that one is being unrepentant for trying to live out his Christian calling to the best of his own limited understanding. All of our understandings are limited, after all, so nobody would be innocent of "unrepentant sin" if that's where we set the bar.

I suspect that fundamentalists would, in the case of at least some of the actions I've mentioned, simply claim that there is a fact of the matter on whether they're sinful, and deny that anyone who is truly a faithful Christian would disagree about the sinfulness of said actions. Homosexuality is a clear example of this; fundamentalists leave no room for Christians to disagree with each other in good faith over whether it's immoral. In fact, for them, what one believes about homosexuality is often as much a litmus test for being a true Christian as what one believes about Christ and the cross. That's the wrong attitude (OK, both their view on homosexuality and their view on whether faithful Christians can in general disagree on it and other matters are wrong), and when I refer to "unrepentant sin," I'm certainly not echoing any of those attitudes. I don't know if that's what you're referring to when asking whether I'm using the phrase in the same sense that fundamentalists do, though, because I don't know if that's what you're associating with fundamentalist views of unrepentant sin.

Regarding pastoral discretion, the precedent is that Christ entrusted the keys of his kingdom to pastors. Now, granted, we Lutherans believe that the keys belong to the entire church. But, for the sake of good order, the keys are entrusted to pastors. Pastors stand in the stead of Christ for the church; they bind and loose (i.e., forgive and withhold forgiveness) on his behalf. When we hear them, we hear him; that's the role to which the church calls them. Like I've already written, there are clear guidelines describing whom pastors ought to commune. At the same time, though, there are situations that arise in which those who fall outside those guidelines receive communion and reap great spiritual benefits from it. When I say "pastoral discretion," I mean that pastors should allow for these exceptions rather than slavishly adhering to the letter of the guidelines in all cases. In my friend's case, she was still investigating the claims of Christianity and, as far as I know, may not have even been baptized when she first communed. Clearly outside of the guidelines, but not the least bit improper. The pastor was well aware of her situation and knew that, by all technicalities, she shouldn't have been communed. Still, I insist that he did the right thing by admitting her to the table, and she would certainly say that he did. In general, like Mel said, people should be made aware of the policy and trusted when they come forward. But in some cases the pastor knows that someone shouldn't commune according to the policy, but communes that person anyway out of a personal awareness of that person's particular circumstances.

 

[RevCowboy]

I was once asked to take part in a wedding at which the bride and groom would receive Communion but the congregation would not be invited to partake. The groom's explanation was that he couldn't be sure the congregation would "discern the body" and did not want to be responsible for anyone eating and drinking to their destruction.

I told him that he would be failing to discern the body (which is the Church) and begged off.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics are notorius for having couple only communion at Weddings because of the sacramentality of marriage.

Here in the ELCIC we are not supposed to have communion at weddings unless everyone is invited. I believe its probably the same in the ELCA.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I don't know if that's what you're referring to when asking whether I'm using the phrase in the same sense that fundamentalists do, though, because I don't know if that's what you're associating with fundamentalist views of unrepentant sin.

It was; thank you for clarifying.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Anglicans and Roman Catholics are notorius for having couple only communion at Weddings because of the sacramentality of marriage.

Here in the ELCIC we are not supposed to have communion at weddings unless everyone is invited. I believe its probably the same in the ELCA.

It is precisely the same in the ELCA.

This was not an RCC or Episcopal wedding. The bride had been raised Lutheran, but was marrying a young man from a non-denominational Fundamentalist church. The wedding service they used was something they bought from Kenneth Copeland Ministries. There were a lot of things in that were objectionable.

 

[Edial]

I know the ELCA's posicy of open communion allows for communion of members of other Christian congregations to participate in communion--at least those denominations which are in some sort of official communion with us. The question here is not whether you like that idea in general or not, but rather:​

Who SHOULD commune with us?​

What a great thread.

1. Scripturally speaking, the following text could be interpreted in several ways:

1CO 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

- One recognizes the Real presence.
- One recognizes Christ on the Cross 2000 years ago.
- One recognizes the Church of God.

2. AngelusSax also presented a great point in another thread that the Disciples did not necessarily understand what Christ meant when he said: "This is my body".
I tend to agree with this, since I see a definite pattern of the Disciples' understanding of the deeper statements of Christ only AFTER the resurrection, when they had Holy Spirit as the Counselor.

3. When I was a non-believer, a friend of mine had a funeral for a relative and the viewing was in a Catholic church. The co-workers went, since it was right by where we worked. The Priest was administering communion. And I just got up and approached to partake. Why? I thought it was appropriate, since I respected Jesus Christ very much, although not a believer. (I did not know any better. ).
The Priest was asking me to repeat something and I could not understand what he was saying and was silent.
He communed me, since there was a long line behind me. (Some of my Catholic co-workers that did not partake were fidgeting in their seats. I could not understand why, ... although I did feel that something was amiss).
Afterwards, when we were on our way out the priest turned away from me and refused to shake my hand.
I was stunned.
Now that I reflect on all this and listening to the interpretation of the Confessional Lutherans, I should have been judged by God.
However, the Lord, instead of judging me for an "unworthy partaking" saved me a year or two later.

3. Also, I cannot ignore the fact that the Baptists are not any sicker nor deader than the Lutherans are due to fact that they believe it is symbolic.

However, Scripturally speaking communion is for the family of God only.
How did I "get away" with it while partaking as a non-believer? It is God's call.

My understanding of the communion at ELCA would be to state exactly what we believe in concerning it, and whoever comes commune them.

We should state though that it is for Christians. If it is presented properly, the non-Christians never feel "excluded" when not partaking.
And some "non-Christians" like I was then, that do not pay attention to what priest says anyway, because his mind is elsewhere examining the new environment, stainglass windows and the really interesting paintings or statues of the Bible events, might just slip in through the cracks.
It is God's call.

Now, Mel mentioned that these need to be baptized Christians and not just a Christian.
She does have a point.

However, I do not see this statement in the Bible.
(Maybe I overlooked it somehow).

I am voting for all Christians.
I really do not understand it any other way.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

Ed,

You have a great illustration about "not getting it" until after communion has happened (in your case, belief altogether, not just concerning Real Presence).

It is God's Call. And of course, even though God can have never-ending wrath, he also has never-ending mercy. For a non-believer to partake is sin, but sin itself was also crucified on the cross of Jesus. Every sin of every person of every time was killed. We experience sin, sure, but it has no lasting effect on us.

Perhaps unbelievers are judged when they commune as they should not, but since even that sin cannot have more power than the grace of the Cross, that is why they aren't immediately struck by lightning.

Basically, "You're guilty, but I won't go back from the Cross and deny mercy. You know not what you do".