Would I be welcome at the communion table?

[C.F.W. Walther]

My only point was that what a denomination may have stated at some point should not be the primary issue since the denomination can't receive the Sacrament. What matters is what the Christian believes.

I'm completely lost as to your point here.

Let me put it this way:
Herman was confirmed in the LCMS in 1952. He's still on the register of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lincoln, ILL (he attends a couple of times a year). Whatever he learned in Confirmation in 1952 (and we have no way of knowing, there is no perscribed mandated curriculum for Confirmation instrustion), he has long ago forgotten. It seems to ME, by this policy, he would automatically - without question - be embraced and welcome to recieve His gift. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what he believes about Communion, but because he was Confirmed 54 years ago and is OFFICALLY a member - he's welcomed. Okay...

But Jim, who has just completed a very intense study of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and agrees with it, who has studied Luther's Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, who understands well the various veiws of Christ's presense in the Sacrament and agrees with the Lutheran position - but is not technically, officially a member of an LCMS Lutheran congregation - well, Jim is barred from His gift and kept away.


Why is the beleif of the denomination all important and the belief of the individual moot? The denominaiton isn't talking to the pastor, a person is. A denomination can't receive the Gift, only a person can.





Then should you be barred from His Gift? Kept away from the Sacrament?

If Jim agrees with the LCMS as much as you do - either 100% - why are you welcomed and he refused? Why is technical, official membership in a denomination more important that what you believe?

How much agreement is necessary for this welcome or refusal?

And if you don't agree with the LCMS on everything, why do you assume everyone else agrees with their denomination on everything?





Yes.
That's what I do, too.




In MY opinion, Lutherans are Christians.
I consider it to be a Christian faith community.

My faith designation specifically says I'm Lutheran. Just like yours.

I MAY not agree with the LCMS on everything, but you said that you do not. Why that makes you a Lutheran but me a Christian is a point I guess I'm missing. To me, Lutherans are Christians.


- Josiah

You know..........you have no idea what any of us went through back then to complete confirmation and if confirmation today by LCMS much less the ELCA, is any indication of what a comfirmant knows then I would take Joe of 52 over Josh of 94 anyday. I memmorized the Small cathecism backwards and forwards and 100's of bible verses. His word does not come back to him void.

It doesn't make any differance what you know in your head becasue the longest distance in the world is the distance between the head and heart. As trite as it seems I have a certicicate of confirmation and you don't. Simple as that. I confessed and was excepted into the Lutheran church and you didn't therfore I can commune with other believers and you shouldn't be able until you confess the support ot the Lutheran Church.

Certainly Christians are Lutheran and visa versa but you try to deceive poeple into believing you are with them or on there side by using that generic phrase and not have enough guts to stand up for one denom or another by an expression of membership. You can't be everything to everybody.

I'm finished talking to you.

 

[LilLamb219]

Because he's OFFICALLY a member of a denomination with which the LCMS is in fellowship, he MUST - automatically, without question - MUST know everything the LCMS has said since 1847 and MUST be in full, 100% agreement with it. It's just assumed.

Ok, you state that this guy only goes to church a few times a year and we know nothing about what he believes since he was confirmed a long time ago. Here is something that maybe you have not thought about and could give you some more insight... Lutheran pastors generally aren't lazy sloths who only preach on Sunday mornings. They put in many hours during the week taking care of the sheep in ways we don't always see or hear. One thing for you to consider is that maybe the pastor went to visit this pretend guy who rarely comes to church. You see, pastors don't like to let the sheep stray too far. It's very much possible that the pastor knows more than the outsiders do about what this fellow still believes.

And what if "those people" don't bring that false theology to the table? Why are they barred from His Sacrament?

Is the key factor here what the denomination they MAY belong to said somewhere, sometime. Or is the key factor that person? Their heart and faith?

What if they don't bring false theology to the table? Who would know since they still are in fellowship with a denomination that espouses false theology. When one is in fellowship with a denomination, one confesses to what the denomination confesses whether or not that person has knowledge or is so ignorant he/she doesn't care to research the group before joining. You really don't give people enough credit.

Concerning our head and heart, well, our life will dictate what our head and heart follow. If my head and heart are with the Lutherans, I'll join a Lutheran congregation (I already have), and if Joe's head and heart lead him to a Baptist church, then he'll pretty much join because our lives are a reflection of what we believe.

 

[LutherNut]

My only point was that what a denomination may have stated at some point should not be the primary issue since the denomination can't receive the Sacrament. What matters is what the Christian believes.

I'm completely lost as to your point here.

Let me put it this way:
Herman was confirmed in the LCMS in 1952. He's still on the register of St. John's Lutheran Church in Lincoln, ILL (he attends a couple of times a year). Whatever he learned in Confirmation in 1952 (and we have no way of knowing, there is no perscribed mandated curriculum for Confirmation instrustion), he has long ago forgotten. It seems to ME, by this policy, he would automatically - without question - be embraced and welcome to recieve His gift. You have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what he believes about Communion, but because he was Confirmed 54 years ago and is OFFICALLY a member - he's welcomed. Okay...

But Jim, who has just completed a very intense study of Pieper's Christian Dogmatics and agrees with it, who has studied Luther's Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, who understands well the various veiws of Christ's presense in the Sacrament and agrees with the Lutheran position - but is not technically, officially a member of an LCMS Lutheran congregation - well, Jim is barred from His gift and kept away.


Why is the beleif of the denomination all important and the belief of the individual moot? The denominaiton isn't talking to the pastor, a person is. A denomination can't receive the Gift, only a person can.





Then should you be barred from His Gift? Kept away from the Sacrament?

If Jim agrees with the LCMS as much as you do - either 100% - why are you welcomed and he refused? Why is technical, official membership in a denomination more important that what you believe?

How much agreement is necessary for this welcome or refusal?

And if you don't agree with the LCMS on everything, why do you assume everyone else agrees with their denomination on everything?





Yes.
That's what I do, too.




In MY opinion, Lutherans are Christians.
I consider it to be a Christian faith community.

My faith designation specifically says I'm Lutheran. Just like yours.

I MAY not agree with the LCMS on everything, but you said that you do not. Why that makes you a Lutheran but me a Christian is a point I guess I'm missing. To me, Lutherans are Christians.


- Josiah

God gives His gifts to the Church. The Church is the "ecclesia", the "assembly." Why would someone want His gifts, but not want to be a mamber of the "ecclesia" to which He gives them?

It doesn't matter at all how "book smart" someone is. It's a faith issue. And if someone refuses to join the "ecclesia" and yet demands the gifts, that's a faith issue. Any pastor worth his salt would ask about this.

It is a Biblical fact that Communion, the breaking of the bread, is a fellowship thing. Why would someone want to break bread and not be part of the fellowship? It just doesn't make sense.

It is also a fact of the LCMS that those who are communicant members hod to go through the instruction of the Small Catechism. It is also the statement that they make when they are accepted into the membership of the congregation that they agree with the faith of the Church as learned through the Small Catechsim. So those who are members of LCMS congregations have gone through the same instruction.

I'm just baffled that this conversation is even happening.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok, you state that this guy only goes to church a few times a year and we know nothing about what he believes since he was confirmed a long time ago. Here is something that maybe you have not thought about and could give you some more insight... Lutheran pastors generally aren't lazy sloths who only preach on Sunday mornings. They put in many hours during the week taking care of the sheep in ways we don't always see or hear. One thing for you to consider is that maybe the pastor went to visit this pretend guy who rarely comes to church. You see, pastors don't like to let the sheep stray too far. It's very much possible that the pastor knows more than the outsiders do about what this fellow still believes.

But how does the pastor of the church where he is guest know that?

This thread is about banning guests.


Herman reads the bulletin blurb that says that persons who are official members of denominations with which the LCMS are in altar fellowship are welcome to attend. So, he's a member of St. John's in Lincoln, Ill - a church in fellowship with the LCMS. So, he's welcomed. Period. That's all that matters. Does the pastor of this church, at which he is a guest, know ANYTHING about Herman's knowledge and beliefs about real presense? Does he know ANYTHING about Herman - other than he is officially on the rolls of a church that belongs to a denomination which which the LCMS has altar fellowship? Evidently, he doesn't need or desire to. Herman is technically an official member of a congregation associated with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. That's all that's relevant. He's welcomed.

Another person comes who completely knows, understands, accepts and is committed to the LCMS's position, but because he is currently attending a nondenom church or because there are no Lutheran churches in his community or he just simply hasn't OFFICIALLY become a member, he is barred. That's it. He is not an OFFICIAL member of a church that associates with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. He is refused and barred from His Sacrament.


It seems to ME what matters in this policy are the various statements of a denomination and our view of them rather than the faith of the communicant. Or, more, in what congregation does the person have OFFICIAL membership and whether the LCMS is in altar fellowship with them or not.


It is MY opinion (but clearly not of anyone else) that the faith of the person should be a higher priority than various statements of the denomination - which, of course, may well not even be known to the person, may not be binding on any laity, and the person may not even agree with it.

We just disagree on this point. I think what matters is what the person believes - heart and head. This is more important than their official congregational membership status. As I read Luther's Catechism (the entire section is quoted verbatim earlier in this thread), Luther too speaks of the PERSON'S heart and faith, without any mention of the various statements made by various denominations and our views of them. But that's how I read Luther's words in the Small Catechism to which the policy directs us.

What if they don't bring false theology to the table? Who would know since they still are in fellowship with a denomination that espouses false theology. When one is in fellowship with a denomination, one confesses to what the denomination confesses whether or not that person has knowledge or is so ignorant he/she doesn't care to research the group before joining. You really don't give people enough credit.

You are assuming that all 2.6 million members of the LCMS have no erronious views whatsoever about the Sacrament and must agree completely with the LCMS, and that all the other 1,998,600,000 Christians must - because they aren't an official member of a congregation of the LMCS - must all have false views on the Sacrament? If so, I respectfully disagree. So, to ME, what matters more is what a person has in their heart and faith - this guest in our church seeking His Gift We clearly disagree about that, and that's okay with me.

The question here is this: In determining if a guest (whom we know nothing about) should be barred from His Sacrament, which is more important? What the person beleives and holds in his heart or what the various historic statements of his denomination (if he belongs to one) are thought to state, which may or may not be known to him, which may or may not be binding on him, which may or may not be agreed upon by him, what those statements are thought to say by the pastor (or others) of the church in which he is a guest. PERSONALLY, IMO, I think that what's in the communicant's heart is the more important issue. That he isn't even asked (because he is, after all, an official member of a congregation assoicated with a denomination with which the LCMS has altar fellowship) seems remarkable to me, and that another person is rejected - without a question asked or even considered - entirely on the basis that he lacks official membership in a congregation assoicated with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. This, IMO, places all the importance on the denomination and none on the faith of the person.

I ask no one to agree with me.
I'm just sharing MY viewpoint on this.
I'm not suggesting any one, any congregation, any synod or any denomination change their policy.
I just think a person's faith is more important than the status of his official membership, but clearly many disagree with me. And that's okay.


- Josiah

 

[LilLamb219]

You are assuming that all 2.6 million members of the LCMS have no erronious views whatsoever about the Sacrament and must agree completely with the LCMS,

You are assuming that their faith is lacking in this area.

If you come across such an individual, do you know the proper biblical proceedings to take?

You have such a lack of respect for the way our synods handle the matters of our beliefs and not only that but you have great doubt for how our members are kept in their catechism and don't trust the pastors enough in their role of the Holy ministry.

You need to stop and examine yourself and how you are treating our synods by continously bringing up these charges that you are doing. If you have come across real life examples, it's not biblical to just come here and pout and stomp your feet about it.

Please, be courteous to the synods of which you are posting within this thread. You have a right to your opinion which you have stated...once too many times. You've said what you wanted to say, to keep saying it repeatedly is disrespectful and I believe goes against forum rules.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are assuming that their faith is lacking in this area.

You are assuming that it's not lacking.

THAT'S my point.
Is assuming the best policy?

When a guest in our church (about whom nothing is known), is the best policy to assume that if they technically belong to a congregation assoicated with a denominaiton with which the LCMS as altar fellowship, therefore they MUST know and believe exactly as we do, and if they worship in a congregation that is not associated with a denomination with which the LCMS as altar fellowship, they MUST believe differently than we do in this regard.

My view is that rather than assuming, it might be good to consider talking with the person. To discover rather than to assume.

But I seem to be a minority of one in this view.
And that's totally okay with me.
As I'm stressed, I'm NOT suggesting that any person, pastor, congregation, synod or denomination change their policy or that any policy is good, bad, biblical, confessional or not. I'm simply sharing MY personal viewpoint that it might be worth considering that speaking with the person might be better than assuming about the person.

If you come across such an individual, do you know the proper biblical proceedings to take?

I'm not sure there's solid biblical support for the practice of assuming, but I'll leave that to others.

You have such a lack of respect for the way our synods handle the matters of our beliefs and not only that but you have great doubt for how our members are kept in their catechism and don't trust the pastors enough in their role of the Holy ministry.

?

The point to ME is that you know NOTHING about this guest in your church. Your entire knowledge of him/her might be limited to a 5 second greeting at the door. It is MY opinion (shared by no one here - and that's okay, being a minority isn't always bad) that it might be considered a good policy to actually TALK to the person about their believes rather than assume them based on their technical membership in a certain congregation. I'm suggesting a conversation rather than an assumption.

Actually, I'm placing the trust in the pastor. Pastors are well trained theologically. I think the pastor could have this discussion with this person and make a judgement that I would respect. I think I'm more comfortable with the pastor's judgement upon conversation than just making assumptions based on their technical, official congregational membership, but we do disagree on that, and for reasons a mystery to me, my view seems highly offensive.

You need to stop continously bringing up these charges that you are doing.

What charges?


I'm sharing my viewpoint that it might be considered to discuss rather than assume. Since nothing is known of this guest, that it MIGHT be a good idea to actually talk to the person rather than assume about the person, and that the judgement be made based on what is known rather than what is assumed. That's it. That's my viewpoint. That's all. I've suggested nothing more.


But, yes, we strongly disagree on this - to the point that it has resulted in considerable anger and rebuking and more (and some nasty PM's!). I'm puzzeled by that - especially since I've repeatedly stressed that I'm NOT suggesting any changes in any policy or seeking that anyone agrees with me.

CF is a discussion forum.
The idea is someone posts something.
Someone else shares their viewpoint or questions. So it goes, with mutual respect, and without personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, flaming, etc.


- Josiah


.

 

[LutherNut]

But how does the pastor of the church where he is guest know that?

This thread is about banning guests.

First, the LCMS does not ban guests from the altar. The LCMS takes the words of our Lord very seriously, especially the words that say unworthy reception or not recognizing the body result in sin and judgement. The LCMS does not want anyone to sin or bring judgement upon themselves by their unworthy reception of the Sacrament. What kind of Church or what kind of Pastor would knowingly allow someone who does not hold what the Scripture teaches us about the Lord's Supper to eat and drink to their judgement? What kind of Pastor would knowingly allow someone to commit a sin at the altar? Certainly not one that I would want in my Church!

Second, those who are members of LCMS congregations are so because they have been instructed and examined in the teachings of the Church, at least from the Small Catechism. And every member has been asked to confess those beliefs when they join the church.
Could they be lying? Of course! Does the Pastor know that? Of course not! At that point it is no longer in the Pastor's hands but in the hands of the unworthy recipient and of God Himself to deal with that person. The pastor cannot know what is in that person's heart.

If that person is an official member of an LCMS congregation, they have been instructed and have made that confession before the Church. This is how the LCMS operates, and every congregation does this.

Herman reads the bulletin blurb that says that persons who are official members of denominations with which the LCMS are in altar fellowship are welcome to attend. So, he's a member of St. John's in Lincoln, Ill - a church in fellowship with the LCMS. So, he's welcomed. Period. That's all that matters. Does the pastor of this church, at which he is a guest, know ANYTHING about Herman's knowledge and beliefs about real presense? Does he know ANYTHING about Herman - other than he is officially on the rolls of a church that belongs to a denomination which which the LCMS has altar fellowship? Evidently, he doesn't need or desire to. Herman is technically an official member of a congregation associated with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. That's all that's relevant. He's welcomed.

Because by being an official member ofd an LCMS congregation, he had to have been instructed in the faith and made a confession of faith in order to join that congregation. If he wasn't instructed and/or didn't make the statement of faith, then he would not be a member of that congregation. They would not have allowed him to be. That's how the LCMS operates.

Another person comes who completely knows, understands, accepts and is committed to the LCMS's position, but because he is currently attending a nondenom church or because there are no Lutheran churches in his community or he just simply hasn't OFFICIALLY become a member, he is barred. That's it. He is not an OFFICIAL member of a church that associates with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. He is refused and barred from His Sacrament.


It seems to ME what matters in this policy are the various statements of a denomination and our view of them rather than the faith of the communicant. Or, more, in what congregation does the person have OFFICIAL membership and whether the LCMS is in altar fellowship with them or not.

If there is no confessional Lutheran Church in their area, that's one thing. If there is and they don't join it, that's another entirely
If someone knows, understands, and accepts the teaching of the Lutheran Church, why don't they join the Lutheran Church? Why do they insist on being a member of a heterodox congregation? Just knowing what the Lutheran church teaches does not constitute believing in God's word and teaching about the Sacrament or anything else for that matter.

I would want to know why this person, who claims to know and understand what the Lutheran church teaches, refuses to make that his or her confession of faith and join into the fellowship of the Lutheran Church. There has to be a reason. It is really a faith issue. If they don't want to join the Lutheran Church, they must not believe what the Lutheran Church teaches, otherwise they would join it. This doubt is enough for a Lutheran pastor to withhold the Sacrament from someone, becasue they are demonstrating doubt in the word of God by refusing to make the confession and to join the fellowship.

It is MY opinion (but clearly not of anyone else) that the faith of the person should be a higher priority than various statements of the denomination - which, of course, may well not even be known to the person, may not be binding on any laity, and the person may not even agree with it.

We just disagree on this point. I think what matters is what the person believes - heart and head. This is more important than their official congregational membership status. As I read Luther's Catechism (the entire section is quoted verbatim earlier in this thread), Luther too speaks of the PERSON'S heart and faith, without any mention of the various statements made by various denominations and our views of them. But that's how I read Luther's words in the Small Catechism to which the policy directs us.

But one's church fellowship speaks volumes of what one believes. If someone believes what the Lutheran Church teaches, they would join the Lutheran Church. It's plain and simple. People belong to churches whose doctrine and practice they agree with. When someone joins a cburch, becomes an official member of that congregation, they are making a public statement that they are in agreement with what that church teaches. This is a given.

You are assuming that all 2.6 million members of the LCMS have no erronious views whatsoever about the Sacrament and must agree completely with the LCMS, and that all the other 1,998,600,000 Christians must - because they aren't an official member of a congregation of the LMCS - must all have false views on the Sacrament? If so, I respectfully disagree. So, to ME, what matters more is what a person has in their heart and faith - this guest in our church seeking His Gift We clearly disagree about that, and that's okay with me.

All communicant members of LCMS congregations (laity are not members of Synod) have been instructed in the faith and have made a public statement that they are in agreement with that faith and to uphold that faith. If they are lying, then it's between them and God.

The question here is this: In determining if a guest (whom we know nothing about) should be barred from His Sacrament, which is more important? What the person beleives and holds in his heart or what the various historic statements of his denomination (if he belongs to one) are thought to state, which may or may not be known to him, which may or may not be binding on him, which may or may not be agreed upon by him, what those statements are thought to say by the pastor (or others) of the church in which he is a guest. PERSONALLY, IMO, I think that what's in the communicant's heart is the more important issue. That he isn't even asked (because he is, after all, an official member of a congregation assoicated with a denomination with which the LCMS has altar fellowship) seems remarkable to me, and that another person is rejected - without a question asked or even considered - entirely on the basis that he lacks official membership in a congregation assoicated with a denomination in altar fellowship with the LCMS. This, IMO, places all the importance on the denomination and none on the faith of the person.

Well, first we do know that they are not confessiong members of the Lutheran Church and therefore have not been instructed in the faith nor have made a public statement of their belief in that faith. (If they were previously members of a Lutheran church but now belong elsewhere, there is obviously a reason for it. This would need to be examined.)

Second, if someone says that are a member of "such-n-such" congregation of the United Methodist Church, it tells us that they have been instructed and made a statement of belief in the UMC doctrines (I know this as a fact because I once looked into the UMC for membership) and we know what the UMC teaches about the Sacrament and it is not in line with God's Word. Therefore, if what they have publically confessed is not in line with God's word, it is not in line with LCMS teaching and practice. God's word tells us that those who receive the Sacrament unworthily or without recognizing the body are sinning and bringing God's judgement upon themselves. You keep talking about people being banned from "receiving His gifts." If they are receiving unworthily or don't recognize the body they are not receiving His gifts, they are receiving His judgement.

I ask no one to agree with me.
I'm just sharing MY viewpoint on this.
I'm not suggesting any one, any congregation, any synod or any denomination change their policy.
I just think a person's faith is more important than the status of his official membership, but clearly many disagree with me. And that's okay.

It is clear that you have absolutely no repsect for what the LCMS teaches. You have no respect for our practice of not wanting people to do spiritual harm to themselves but rather to worthily receive the Sacrament thereby receiving His gifts instead of His judgement.

If you knew Lutheran teaching anywhere close to what you brag about knowing, then you certainly would know this. Your lack of Confirmation instruction as glaringly obvious is your ignorance of the LCMS practice and teaching regarding the Lord's Supper.

If you hate the LCMS so much, why do you attend one?

 

[LutherNut]

But, yes, we strongly disagree on this - to the point that it has resulted in considerable anger and rebuking and more (and some nasty PM's!). I'm puzzeled by that - especially since I've repeatedly stressed that I'm NOT suggesting any changes in any policy or seeking that anyone agrees with me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is wrong. You have been shown that over and over, but you refuse to listen to anyone. You brag about how much you have studied the Lutheran teachings, but your posts and your errant opinions sure don't reflect anything that the Lutheran Church (and in particular the LCMS) holds, teaches, or confesses. You are totally ignorant of God's word regarding the proper and worthy reciept of Christ's body and blood. Your own words demonstrate this.

We will continue to pray that you will someday see that your opinions are in error and that the Holy Spirit may guide you into all truth.

I suggest that you cease this debate in this sub-forum, or I will need to consult with a moderator.

God's blessings to you, sir.

 

[LilLamb219]

Quote

If you come across such an individual, do you know the proper biblical proceedings to take?

I'm not sure there's solid biblical support for the practice of assuming, but I'll leave that to others.

It's obvious you didn't understand. If you have a gripe with someone (say, for instance you don't think they are being honest and are going to communion to an LCMS church...a long time member but denies the teaching), you go to that person directly to inquire and show the truth. If that person doesn't listen, you go back with 2 or three.

Now, if there really is a person in real life who is in the congregation you're attending and is doing what you've written above, the incorrect thing would be to come to a message board and rant and rave about how unfair it is for you.

One other thing came to my mind while reading LutherNut's posting, especially when he commented on the word "ban". Too many people go around saying Gimme Gimme as if they were entitled no matter where they go. You don't go to someone's house and demand they feed you dinner. When you go to another congregation, you are a guest and it isn't mandatory for you to be fed the Supper. It's not a right of yours if you aren't in fellowship with the congregation just like in a real family, it's not a right of yours to walk in and expect something being a stranger. I know you're not saying you demand it outright, but your wording sure does hint that you think you're entitled to communion no matter what at ANY Lutheran church...just because you don't understand how the synods believe concerning this.

This is not a flame posting. This is a posting to help you understand. Your continuation in this thread of disagreeing the same point over and over can be construed as harrassment in a small way. We've corrected you and guided you, yet you persist. We've heard your opinion, over and over. For you to keep bringing it up shows that you want to try to change our minds concerning this, but that shouldn't even be attempted on this forum. We follow what our synods believe.

Like I said, we don't mind being questioned and hearing others' opinions, but once it's all been said, to continue to do so over and over makes you resemble a troll and I don't think you want to appear to be that way. I think that you truly do not understand our position and you're having trouble just stepping away and trying to digest it for a few days.

 

[SPALATIN]

Thanks for your answer, LutherNut. FYI, I do believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. And so does the United Methodist Church.

The following was taken from "This Holy Mystery - A United Methodist Understanding of Communion," which was adopted by the 2004 General Conference of The United Methodist Church as an official interpretive statement of theology and practice in The United Methodist Church.


"United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. "


EDIT: See post below for further clarification on the issue of the body and blood of Christ.


I'm saddened to know that I would not be welcome at the Lord's table in your church, but I appreciate your honesty.

Your sister in Christ,
Grace

Grace,

A little sidebar to what LutherNut said. If you went to the Pastor of an LCMS church and talked to him about it, he might examine you in your faith and if he determined that you believed as we do he might let you commune, but for the most part LutherNut is correct in that Lutherans and Methodists are not of the same beliefs when it comes to the Sacrament of the Altar.

I say give it a try. The worst he is going to say is no. We hold the sacrament in high esteem and as we do our Christian Brothers and Sisters. When Paul states that we should not take the sacrament to our judgement he is very firm about this. We care about your spiritual well being and would welcome you should you find that you are more Lutheran than Wesleyan.

 

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.


I apologize for the delay in posting this. We have had power outages from thunderstorms today, and apparently my post got lost in one of the blips.

I took the time this morning to read through this entire thread slowly, after several spot-reads of it over the last two days. I had been asked, both by private message and in formal reports, to intervene in some problems in this thread.

First, let me say that as often happens, I am impressed by the thoroughness that you all as Lutherans show in your knowledge of your various churches' doctrine and positions; and by the thoroughness with which you undertake to explain those positions.

Second, I wish to make it clear to visitors to this subforum, that this is the congregational home for members of conservative Lutheran synods and bodies. If you are non-Lutheran, belong to a non-conservative Lutheran church, or nominally belong to a conservative Lutheran church but disagree with the norms and positions taken by that church, then you must deport yourself in this subforum as a guest. Although Lutherans generally consider open, respectful discussion to be a form of fellowship, any disprespect of conservative Lutheranism or conservative Lutheran doctrine or perspectives will be considered a violation of the rule prohibiting non-fellowship posts.

Furthermore, if you question conservative Lutheran practice or doctrine, it is contingent upon you as a guest in this forum to read any responses thouroughly and to consider them thoughtfully. Obviously the answers you receive will be presented according to a conservative Lutheran perspective. If you continue on to discuss the issues from your own perspective, while neglecting or ignoring issues that, from a conservative Lutheran perspective might be considered definative or comprehensive responses to your positiion, that neglect will appear as a form of disrespect.

Finally, I wish to remind the members of this forum that, if you do discern disrespect of conservative Lutheranism, you nonetheless may not respond with flaming, baiting, defamation or any other rule violation. You may bring the issue to the attention of staff either by using the report button, or by a private message to staff members.





Regards,
Pamela Mclean
Senior Moderator, Theoligica Crucis - Lutherans

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

This is an official moderator post.


I apologize for the delay in posting this. We have had power outages from thunderstorms today, and apparently my post got lost in one of the blips.

I took the time this morning to read through this entire thread slowly, after several spot-reads of it over the last two days. I had been asked, both by private message and in formal reports, to intervene in some problems in this thread.

First, let me say that as often happens, I am impressed by the thoroughness that you all as Lutherans show in your knowledge of your various churches' doctrine and positions; and by the thoroughness with which you undertake to explain those positions.

Second, I wish to make it clear to visitors to this subforum, that this is the congregational home for members of conservative Lutheran synods and bodies. If you are non-Lutheran, belong to a non-conservative Lutheran church, or nominally belong to a conservative Lutheran church but disagree with the norms and positions taken by that church, then you must deport yourself in this subforum as a guest. Although Lutherans generally consider open, respectful discussion to be a form of fellowship, any disprespect of conservative Lutheranism or conservative Lutheran doctrine or perspectives will be considered a violation of the rule prohibiting non-fellowship posts.

Furthermore, if you question conservative Lutheran practice or doctrine, it is contingent upon you as a guest in this forum to read any responses thouroughly and to consider them thoughtfully. Obviously the answers you receive will be presented according to a conservative Lutheran perspective. If you continue on to discuss the issues from your own perspective, while neglecting or ignoring issues that, from a conservative Lutheran perspective might be considered definative or comprehensive responses to your positiion, that neglect will appear as a form of disrespect.

Finally, I wish to remind the members of this forum that, if you do discern disrespect of conservative Lutheranism, you nonetheless may not respond with flaming, baiting, defamation or any other rule violation. You may bring the issue to the attention of staff either by using the report button, or by a private message to staff members.





Regards,
Pamela Mclean
Senior Moderator, Theoligica Crucis - Lutherans

Well I see it does some good to complain to the mods about outside interlopers and I thank them for it. This sub-forum should be a safe place for discussion without having to worry about harrasment from outsiders. The main Lutheran forum is adequate for these types of discussions and anyone is fair game there......I think

Again I thank the mods for their patients and will not make excusses for my conduct in here according to "flaming" rules. I do get carried away but then I only have Luther as an example and Jesus's example of cleaning the temple out

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The LCMS takes the words of our Lord very seriously, especially the words that say unworthy reception or not recognizing the body result in sin and judgement. The LCMS does not want anyone to sin or bring judgement upon themselves by their unworthy reception of the Sacrament. What kind of Church or what kind of Pastor would knowingly allow someone who does not hold what the Scripture teaches us about the Lord's Supper to eat and drink to their judgement? What kind of Pastor would knowingly allow someone to commit a sin at the altar? Certainly not one that I would want in my Church!

Valid.

But that's not the discussion here. OF COURSE, an unworthly person should not be invited to His Gift. Luther specifically addresses this issue of worthiness in his Small Catechism (to which the policy directs us) which I quoted verbatim earlier in this thread.


The issue I'm discussing is only this:


What is the better way to dermine what this person believes in this regard? Ask them or assume it?


MY view - shared by no one (and that's okay) is that discussing it is better than assuming it. As I've posted repeatedly, that's my only point.


But I've shared this only as a possiblity to discuss. That's it.


Why this is so extremely offensive is a point that no one has yet made - except to point out that this is not the policy of the LCMS, which, as I've pointed out, I have no desire or interest in changing. I'm just sharing my viewpoint.

Second, those who are members of LCMS congregations are so because they have been instructed and examined in the teachings of the Church, at least from the Small Catechism. And every member has been asked to confess those beliefs when they join the church.
Could they be lying? Of course! Does the Pastor know that? Of course not! At that point it is no longer in the Pastor's hands but in the hands of the unworthy recipient and of God Himself to deal with that person. The pastor cannot know what is in that person's heart.

Yes, I realize the policy is to assume that the person knows the correct theology here and fully believes it. I know that. The determination is based entiredly on this assumption. You've made this point repeatedly and abuntantly clear. Thank you!



MY point is that it might be good to talk with the person about this, rather than assume this. To base this determination on what is known rather than what is assumed.


After all, the pastor of the congregation (it has been stressed there is some hefty responsiblity here) knows NOTHING about this guest. Is it within the realm of possibility that this person, perhaps confirmed some time ago, didn't really understand the position? Or he's forgotten? Or his 40 years as a Baptist altared his view before he switched back to the LCMS? It is a possibility? If it's a possibility, then it seems to ME it might be good not to base this AWESOME responsibility on an assumption. Purely, completely, totally on an assumption.

If that person is an official member of an LCMS congregation, they have been instructed and have made that confession before the Church. This is how the LCMS operates, and every congregation does this.

Okay. So, there's a mutual assumption that all were taught the same thing, they all fully and completely understood it, and every one of the 2.6 million members are still fully aware of the teachings, understands them and fully agree with them. This is all just assumed. Conversely, anyone who is not now an official member of a congregation which is assoicated with the LCMS has not been taught corrrectly about the Sacrament, cannot know the Truth in this regard, and cannot agree with it. Therefore, this AWESOME responsbility is based entirely on this singular assumption. Okay. I just think maybe that should be discussed. I guess not...


It is simply MY view that the assumption could be wrong. Therefore, it might be better to make this determination of the person's faith based on a discussion about that. I'm just saying discovering what they beleive might be better done by asking them than by assuming about them. .

But one's church fellowship speaks volumes of what one believes.

We just disagree with this point.

I've seen little evidence from any studies I've seen that supports this assumption.

Do you know, from empiricle studies, that 100% of LMCS Confirmed members know everything the LCMS teaches, fully understand it, and are in 100% agreement with it? OR at least these recent studies of the 2.6 million members are sufficiently high to support the assumption in this AWESOME determination? I know they all took some kind of class and I know they all said they agreed with Lutheran teachings - that's not my question. But what evidence does the LCMS have that this assumption is true? Have random surveys been done of the 2.6 million members that clearly, overwhelmingly support the assumption? Is the evidence for this assumption SO strong that such an AWESOME responsibility of embracing for rejecting a Christian from His Sacrament should be made based on this assumption?

And do you know that none of the other 1,998,800,000 Christians do not beleive as the LCMS does in this regard? Enough so, it's so solid and overwhelming, that it's ALL THAT IS NEEDED in this AWESOME responsbility of rejecting a worthy communicant and embracing an unworthy one?


THAT'S the issue.
Is the BEST approach to simply ASSUME or should some conversation with the pastor take place? Should the AWESOME responsibility here be based entirely on what is assumed? Should such an awesome thing be based on what is assumed or on what is known? Those ARE questions. I've only raised the question. I now fully realize how objectionable the question is.

All communicant members of LCMS congregations (laity are not members of Synod) have been instructed in the faith and have made a public statement that they are in agreement with that faith and to uphold that faith. If they are lying, then it's between them and God.

...and therefore, that person can be invited or barred from His Sacrament entirely based on this assumption that they know and agree with the LCMS position???? All 2.6 million LCMS people do - it's assumed, no need for another word, and all 1.997 billion others do not know and do not agree - it's assumed.


Is this AWESOME responsibility about eating and drinking unworthily best made by assuming what they believe, not in asking them what they believe?
By what is assumed rather than by what is known?
Okay.
We're just disagreeing about that.
That's okay with me.

Well, first we do know that they are not confessiong members of the Lutheran Church and therefore have not been instructed in the faith nor have made a public statement of their belief in that faith.

I find this very likely.
They were instructed - yes.
Did 100% of they learn 100% of it?
Do they remember 100% of it?
To they currently agree with 100% of it?
Your position is the best policy is to assume it.
My position is the best policy is to discuss it. We disagree.


And it seems the policy is also to assume that none of the other 1.997 billion could possiblty know the truth. They have the same Word the LCMS does, so in my opinion, it IS possible for those outside the LCMS know the Truth. I think it existed before the LCMS even existed, so I think it's at least possible that it can exist outside of it. In any case, MY view is this perhaps could be better determined by discussing it rather than assuming it. That's what we are disagreeing about.

You keep talking about people being banned from "receiving His gifts." If they are receiving unworthily or don't recognize the body they are not receiving His gifts, they are receiving His judgement.

RIGHT!

That's one reason I began a discussion about placing the entire basis for that on an assumption.

You have no respect for our practice of not wanting people to do spiritual harm to themselves but rather to worthily receive the Sacrament thereby receiving His gifts instead of His judgement.

?


I've said NOTHING in this thread about LCMS doctrines. The ONLY issue I'm addressing in this thread is if this AWESOME responsibility by the church in which the guest is in attendance should be made based entirely on an assumption. That's all. That's it. That's the ONLY issue I've raised. It's MY view that the person's worthiness could perhaps better be determined by a discussion rather than an assumption, that it could better be determined by what is KNOWN rather than by what is ASSUMED.


But clearly, this not only is NOT the policy but the every suggestion of it - purely as a point of a personal viewpoint for discussion and NOT as a suggestion for any change - is... well...







- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let me be as clear as I can:

MY personal viewpoint in this regard is that it's perhaps something to consider that such an AWESOME determination should be made based on what is KNOWN rather than what is ASSUMED.


That's all I've been saying.
Sorry, I had no idea such a viewpoint would be so extremely objectionable and offensive.



- Josiah


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is wrong. You have been shown that over and over, but you refuse to listen to anyone.

I've not asked anyone to agree with me.
I've not asked any person, congregation, synod or denomination to change anything.

I've not refused to listen to anyone.
We're having a discussion.
It's what this website is for.

MY view is that it is at least worthly of consideration that this determination of worthiness regarding this guest should be based on what is KNOWN not what is ASSUMED.

You and the others have made the LCMS position clear - over and over, and I thank you for that and I have not suggested it be changed. I have not questioned your resentation of the LCMS policy in this regard.


Regarding the biblical support for this policy, I asked before for the Scriptures that teach we should treat one another based on what is assumed rather than what is known. None were offered.


- Josiah

 

[Jim47]

Luther Nut
Second, those who are members of LCMS congregations are so because they have been instructed and examined in the teachings of the Church, at least from the Small Catechism. And every member has been asked to confess those beliefs when they join the church.

Josiah
Okay. So, there's a mutual assumption that all were taught the same thing, they all fully and completely understand it, and every one of the 2.6 million members are still fully aware of the teachings and fully agree with them. This is assumed. Conversely, anyone who is not now an official member of a congregation which is assoicated with the LCMS has not been taught corrrectly about the Sacrament, cannot know the Truth in this regard, and cannot agree with it. Therefore, this AWESOME responsbility is based entirely on this singular assumption. Okay.

I don't know if this will help or not, but this has all gotten too complicated .

What qualifies someone to recieve communion is not knowledge. If that were so I would probably not be quealified. What is important is a clear confession of faith and agreement with the teachings of the church. Many people are brighter then I am, but may not have faith or be in agreement with our doctrines which are taken directly from the bible. If someone goes through training but will not make a clear confession of faith or state that they are in agreement with the churches teachings, how would it be right to let them partake of the sacraments? The church would be in serious error if it did.

So to make it short and sweet, its not about knowledge, its about a clear confession of faith and a statement of agreement. No one will be served communion in my church unless they follow these, and it is done for their good as Luther Nut has stated.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't know if this will help or not, but this has all gotten too complicated .

The ONLY question I've raised is whether this determination of worthiness for His Gift (?) should be based on what is assumed or what is known.

What qualifies someone to recieve communion is not knowledge.

The Catechism, to which the policy directs us, addresses the issue of worthiness. It talks about the faith in our hearts in those words.

So, perhaps it should be okay to discuss how we know what that person believes. The policy, as it has repeatedly been defined, says we should assume this by their current technical official membership in a congregation and to which denomination that congregation is assoicated with, if any.

If someone goes through training but will not make a clear confession of faith or state that they are in agreement with the churches teachings, how would it be right to let them partake of the sacraments? The church would be in serious error if it did.

This is where the discussion has been made complicated. There's not only an assumption about what the person believes here, but also an assumption as to why they belong to a particular congregation. Could this be an assumption based on an assumption?

Is the only way to say "I believe" by the Rite of Confirmation? A person cannot believe something if they have not been Confirmed in a congregation that is in association with a denomination in fellowship with the LCMS or WELS? But I divert. The ONLY question I'm discussion is what is the best way to determine worthiness? To assume or to know?

So to make it short and sweet, its not about knowledge, its about a clear confession of faith and a statement of agreement. No one will be served communion in my church unless they follow these, and it is done for their good as Luther Nut has stated.

So, the issue is not what's in the person's heart and faith (I'm recalling what Luther said in the Catechism that I quoted verbatim earlier in this thread) but rather the denomination to which the congregation was officially assoicated in which the 14 year old participated in the Rite of Confirmation? Is the issue not what is believed but that they were Confirmed? Or is it just assumed by the pastor of the church in which this person is visiting that what whatever the person was taught back then is what is in that person's heart now? Is it assumed what was taught, that it was understood, that it was agreed to, and all that is still the case? The pastor of the church in which this person is visiting is to assume all that?

It just seems to me it might be worth considering the possibility of basing this awesome responsbility on what is known rather than assumed, on what's in this person's heart and faith rather than our understanding of what he affirmed on his Confirmation day.


- Josiah

 

[Protoevangel]

CaliforniaJosiah,

You do make some good and valid points, but I also see the validity to LutherNut's resistance to them. LilLamb made an important point regarding the way you keep insisting on restating your points ad nauseum.

Eh, let's forget about that, though.

When I was leaving the ELCA, I visited a number of LCMS and LCC congregations. Some of the congregations were blatantly open-communion[sup](1)[/sup]; some included a blurb in their bulletin regarding their belief in the Real Presence, stating that if anyone agreed, then they were welcome at the Altar[sup](2)[/sup]; and at others, I was asked to speak to the Pastor[sup](3)[/sup]. Of the congregations in this last group, some of them admitted me to the Altar based on our discussion[sup](3a)[/sup], but others asked me to refrain from consuming the Lord's Body and Blood with them until such a time as I had fully broken ties with the ELCA and became a full member, in good standing, of an LCMS congregation, or of a congregation in a synod in fellowship with the LCMS[sup](3b)[/sup].

The only proper way to handle Communion, I believe, is 3. From what I understand, 3b is generally the official position of the LCMS, but I also believe that there is sufficient lattitude within the guidelines to make 3a an acceptable practice in limited cases.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=422

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion").

Some LCMS congregations interpret this very losely, and we have open or nearly-open communion, and no discipline for those pastors promoting this evil and unloving practice. On the other hand, some Pastors may go so far as to exclude anyone who is not a confirmed LCMS member, under any circumstance. Both practices are wrong, and go against LCMS policy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To the repeated and constant emphasis on Confirmation instruction and the Rite thereof:


The LCMS does not require that a person be Confirmed ANYWHERE in order to be welcomed for the His Sacrament.

Since the 1960's, it's been the official policy of the LCMS to fully embrace "First Communion." The LCMS publishing house - CPH - publishes some outstanding materials for the training in the Sacrament prepared by the Synod's Board of Education. I've seen those materials. They don't mention denominations or Confirmation. They speak of what Luther speaks. So, whether someone has been Confirmed or not is not an issue for Communion in the LCMS.


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has never understood or applied the historic practice of close[d] Communion in such a way as to mean that only LCMS members are permitted to commune at LCMS altars. The official position of the Synod is that not only are members of other Lutheran churches with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship invited to commune with us, but also that in certain extraordinary cases of pastoral care and in emergencies members of churches not in fellowship with us may be given Communion. The Synod stated, for example, in 1986 "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances" (1986 Res. 3-08 "To Maintain Practice of Close Communion").

Ah. Thanks!

Because when I raise this issue in an email to my LMCS pastor, quoting some of the posts here - including the "policy of the LCMS" he wrote back to say that closed communion was NOT the policy of the LCMS NOR was Confirmation required. Pastor's ARE permitted to discuss these issues to people (as I've been suggesting might be considered) and, in his words, "most pastors prefer this admittedly much harder approach rather than just assuming." In fact, rather than expressing distain for my view of the LCMS, he expressed his appreciation for how I came to him (via email in this case) - giving him the time to actually have the discussion, and how I stressed that I would respect and honor him completely in his judgement. I expressed my faith and heart, my beliefs about the Holy Sacrament, my life situation, and many other things. Rather than the reactions I got in this thread (and some AMAZING PM's), his reaction was one of appreciation for my approach.

I must add, I appreciated his, too. He assumed NOTHING but took the time and effort to get to know ME and to evaluate things according to MY heart and faith, not his understanding of what is meant by some statements of some denomination. I respect that. I'm puzzeled by how much distain people have for that, and how much insistance there is on assuming, on our understanding denominatons, and this connection to Confirmation (which isn't the LCMS policy at all).

I CAN understand how this might be abused by lazy pastors who ask a single question and say "fine." This, however, seems perhaps less lazy than the pastor who asks only, "in what denomination do you belong?" At least the focus is on what the communicant believes rather than the denomination (the denomination isn't taking Communion!) BUT, MY POSITION, is that laziness is inappropriate in such an awesome task. I've been a voice for DISCUSSION, not assumption. Why that has been soooooooooooooo offensive is a mystery to me. But it seems it will need to remain such.


- Josiah