What does it mean?--a question for those who believe in closed communion [Archive]

View Full Version : What does it mean?--a question for those who believe in closed communion

ByzantineDixie

7th May 2005, 10:43 AM

Flipper

7th May 2005, 11:55 AM

First of all, how does your church handle it?

I thought my church had truely open communion, but there is an entire page in the worship bullitin that asks specific questions to those who are not members of the church. If you can answer affirmatively, you can take communion. If you can't answer them affirmatively, you are asked to not take communion, or instead go up for a blessing. Something is said about the questions in the service before communion starts. Since coming here, I did finally ask an elder, and he confirmed that they went to doing that because of the number of people visiting - it was hard to keep track of whether only LCMS Lutherans were receiving communion.

If your church does that, I don't think it's really open communion, and then you shouldn't have any concern. If it's truely, "all are welcome," then I really don't know what to tell you. The pastor who is giving communion knows what it truly means, you know what it truly means. If someone comes up who doesn't know, it's their spiritual danger, not yours.

ByzantineDixie

7th May 2005, 12:09 PM

First of all, how does your church handle it? ...The pastor who is giving communion knows what it truly means,

I haved discussed this with my pastor. He would not disagree that our practice is "open".

you know what it truly means.

Not really...that is why I am asking the question. Maybe someone will come up with an angle I haven't managed to see yet. I have discussed this with my pastor. He clearly did not see this as a problem. I'd like to be able to follow my shepherd in this...but I can't seem to.

If someone comes up who doesn't know, it's their spiritual danger, not yours.

Flipper being flippant? ;)

Oh, that I wish I could be more concerned for others than I am for myself......R

catzinjammies

7th May 2005, 02:09 PM

I find it disturbing but not uncommon that some LCMS pastors are communing anyone with a pulse. I believe they do so at their own peril, but not yours. The pastor is responsible for his flock, not the idividual sheep within the flock. Having said that, I would pray for the repentance of the pastor, and for the folks he's not shepherding well. Does he offer reasons why he has abandoned the practice of closed communion? Did he used to and has just stopped? I am sorry for your situation, I know it's tough.

CIJ

Flipper

7th May 2005, 02:54 PM

Flipper being flippant? ;)

Oh, that I wish I could be more concerned for others than I am for myself......R

That did come out wrong. :doh: Everyone keeps telling me to quit trying to worry about everyone else and worry about myself instead. Just trying out that new kind of assertion.

Did he tell you why he made the change?

ByzantineDixie

7th May 2005, 04:18 PM

:D Nah, I understood...just wanted to tease you!

Did he tell you why he made the change?

Oh no, he hasn't changed his practice...it has always been that way since he first arrived. I am the one who has changed.

revjpw

7th May 2005, 06:46 PM

I have been wrestling with this one for quite awhile with no resolution in sight. As many of you aware, we have many congregations in the LCMS who no longer practice closed communion. My congregation is one of those.

What does it mean that I choose to continue to commune at this open Table when I know full well that this is contrary to our confession. The reality is I cannot "not commune". I think to do this would be like spiritual starvation. And...there are other reasons why I must stay where I am for now.

And a question for you who also know closed communion to be the appropriate practice of our faith...what does it mean that you are joined to such congregations (fellowship via a synod ) that abuse the Table? Especially with no correction on the horizon for the offending congregations.

Please...let's limit this discussion to the implications stated. If you want to discuss whether or not closed communion is a too restrictive Lutheran practice, please do so in another thread. Thanks.

Rose

The practice of Closed Communion is a standard for continued membership in the LCMS. The real problem is that there is absolutely no discipline being administered to those congregations who are openly defying the practice. I would ask the pastor how he justifies his membership in the Synod when he is blatantly breaking this extremely important practice.

While you are not accountable for the actions and sins of others, the pastor by all means is. He must stand before the Throne of God on the last day to make an account. By openly inviting unworthy recipients he is allowing them to committ a sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord at the altar that he has been called by God to serve. Not only are the unworthy recipients sinning, so is the pastor.

When you kneel at that altar you are making a public statement that you are in full agreement with the Confession being stated at that altar. In a sense, by your communing there, you are publicly stating that you agree with the practice of open communion. You will need to be very certain of what exactly the pastor's real practice is before you take a drastic stance such as refusing to commune.

This is from the LCMS website:

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").
A number of resources are available and touch on this subject, including the Commission on Theology and Church Relations's (CTCR) 1983 and 1999 reports on Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Theol_lord_supper1.pdf) and Admission to the Lord's Supper (http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf).
You should have the pastor explain the practice he is currently employing at your church.

ByzantineDixie

7th May 2005, 07:00 PM

When you kneel at that altar you are making a public statement that you are in full agreement with the Confession being stated at that altar. In a sense, by your communing there, you are publicly stating that you agree with the practice of open communion.

What does it mean for you, rev, that you are linked in fellowship with my congregation where this is practiced? Doesn't the same implication apply to you and the people in your congregation? Aren't we, in effect, communing together. So that while you are in the LCMS, and the LCMS is not disciplining congregations which practice open communion, are you not proclaiming a similar fellowship agreement? What implications do you see for you, your family and your congregation?

Thx

Jim47

7th May 2005, 08:32 PM

It would be hard for me to give up communion myself, and I'm not sure thats necessary. What I would do is have your husband and others take this to the board of elders, it is the elders job to make sure that The Pastor is performing his duties as called. My Pastor and previous Pastors have told me this themselves.

Rechtgläubig

8th May 2005, 02:12 AM

Rose,

Personally, (I am not telling you what to do, only what I think I would do if I was in this position):

I would first make it clear to my pastor how I felt. If the practice continued, I would refuse to Commune. If he asked, then I would tell him why. Jim sugested going to the board of elders, since that advice is comming from a pastor, I guess that would be my next step. Still no dice? I would be on the phone with the circut pastor (or whatever the LCMS equivilent is). I'd probably even ask him for private Communion while all this is being sorted out.

I never thought about it before, so I don't really have any good advice, sorry Rose and God Bless! :sigh:

Protoevangel

8th May 2005, 03:14 AM

Rose, I tried to bless you on the OP, but I couldn't.

Without raising the questions you asked not be raised, I cannot say everything I would otherwise say, but I want you to know that I do understand your struggle, as I am going through a very similar struggle at my church.

God bless you and comfort you, my sister!

revjpw

8th May 2005, 01:32 PM

What does it mean for you, rev, that you are linked in fellowship with my congregation where this is practiced?

If that is truly the practice there (and I would really need much more information to make a determination), then I do not feel in fellowship with that congregation. They are practicing outside the fellowship of the Synod.

Qoheleth

8th May 2005, 02:06 PM

If that is truly the practice there (and I would really need much more information to make a determination), then I do not feel in fellowship with that congregation. They are practicing outside the fellowship of the Synod.

Yet the Synod is not disciplining these congregations and in effect turning a blind eye. And yes, St. Louis is very aware of this practice.

Q

ByzantineDixie

8th May 2005, 03:17 PM

If that is truly the practice there (and I would really need much more information to make a determination), then I do not feel in fellowship with that congregation. They are practicing outside the fellowship of the Synod.

Rev...it is the practice. Not only in my congregation but in most congregations around this part of the country. (Think "salt water districts".) It is no secret that there are many congregations in the LCMS that have open communion. As Q notes...the synod isn't taking disciplinary action. They are turning a blind eye to this kind of abuse. So, this lack of action on the part of the synod, basically serves as tacit approval and accordingly...whether you feel it or not...links us in fellowship.

It would be great if you pastors who know better would put some pressure on the synod to fix this. I think the implications are significant...fairly similar to the arguments you make regarding the ELCA being in altar fellowship with church bodies who do not believe in the Real Presence. While the ELCA does...they are in communion with church bodies that do not. Likewise...while your congregation doesn't believe in or practice open communion...you are in fellowship with congregations in the LCMS that do.

It is a mess, isn't it? The catholic church in the West isn't looking too catholic these days.

:sigh: Rose

SPALATIN

8th May 2005, 03:51 PM

SPALATIN

9th May 2005, 09:48 AM

bump ;)

ChiRho

9th May 2005, 10:47 AM

Rev...it is the practice. Not only in my congregation but in most congregations around this part of the country. (Think "salt water districts".) It is no secret that there are many congregations in the LCMS that have open communion. As Q notes...the synod isn't taking disciplinary action. They are turning a blind eye to this kind of abuse. So, this lack of action on the part of the synod, basically serves as tacit approval and accordingly...whether you feel it or not...links us in fellowship.

It would be great if you pastors who know better would put some pressure on the synod to fix this. I think the implications are significant...fairly similar to the arguments you make regarding the ELCA being in altar fellowship with church bodies who do not believe in the Real Presence. While the ELCA does...they are in communion with church bodies that do not. Likewise...while your congregation doesn't believe in or practice open communion...you are in fellowship with congregations in the LCMS that do.

It is a mess, isn't it? The catholic church in the West isn't looking too catholic these days.

:sigh: Rose

Hopefully, this does not carry the implication that the East has all in order.

Qoheleth

9th May 2005, 10:52 AM

Hopefully, this does not carry the implication that the East has all in order.

Why would this bother you?

Q

ChiRho

9th May 2005, 10:58 AM

Why would this bother you?

Q

Oh, I dunno, the thought of losing another Lutheran to the Eastern Pietism makes me cringe, how 'bout you?

revjpw

9th May 2005, 11:20 AM

The problem as I see it is what's the Synod going to do about it? There are just enough of the church's (including mine) where the Pastor believes it to be "legalistic" to cut off anyone who believes in the Real Presence. How do you enforce this with all church's especially if the Pastor doesn't agree with the synod's stand?

Does the synod expel them? Do they weigh sanctions against the church who's Pastor teaches open communion? I just don't see how the Synod can effectively discipline the Congregation or Pastor who espouses the practice of Open Communion. I would be interested in views from Rev or Q or Filo on this.

The problem right now is that the Conservative (or Confessional or whatever other name you want to give it) side of the Synod is totally unorganized. There are too many factions. This is what happens when politics get involved in the Church. (The UCC is a prime example.) It's a credibility issue. I consider myself both conservative and confessional, but I would not link myself with some of the more vocal conservatives in the synod. They're a bit too radical for me.

As for the open communion problem, this is someothing that should have been addressed a long time ago. There are simply too many pastors right now practicing this way. If the synod were to simply "expel" them, we would have a serious problem with vacancies (worse than we have now).

However, seminaries have been rather prudent in maintaining the Biblical, Synodical, and Confessional position on communion and other practices. Hopefully we will see a reversal of this trend over time.

ChiRho

9th May 2005, 11:27 AM

The problem right now is that the Conservative (or Confessional or whatever other name you want to give it) side of the Synod is totally unorganized. There are too many factions. This is what happens when politics get involved in the Church. (The UCC is a prime example.) It's a credibility issue. I consider myself both conservative and confessional, but I would not link myself with some of the more vocal conservatives in the synod. They're a bit too radical for me.

As for the open communion problem, this is someothing that should have been addressed a long time ago. There are simply too many pastors right now practicing this way. If the synod were to simply "expel" them, we would have a serious problem with vacancies (worse than we have now).

However, seminaries have been rather prudent in maintaining the Biblical, Synodical, and Confessional position on communion and other practices. Hopefully we will see a reversal of this trend over time.

Rev,

I know this has to be a nationwide epidemic, because there are even renegade congregations here in Ft. Wayne. I couldnt believe it when I first started looking at the websites of churches in this area and found some of the most disgusting (fill in preferrable expletive), just a few miles from the Seminary.

Pax

Qoheleth

9th May 2005, 01:29 PM

Oh, I dunno, the thought of losing another Lutheran to the Eastern Pietism makes me cringe, how 'bout you?

Its the loss of our Orthodox Confessional Catholic Evangelical Faith that makes me cringe.

Q

Qoheleth

9th May 2005, 01:32 PM

As for the open communion problem, this is someothing that should have been addressed a long time ago. There are simply too many pastors right now practicing this way. If the synod were to simply "expel" them, we would have a serious problem with vacancies (worse than we have now).

All the same, my understanding is that "officially" no action is being taken.

My question is, what is the reason for this lapse and is there more than meets the eye?

Q

SPALATIN

9th May 2005, 01:55 PM

All the same, my understanding is that "officially" no action is being taken.

My question is, what is the reason for this lapse and is there more than meets the eye?

Q

My guess is that SP Kieschnick is for Open Communion.

Why did we vote this guy in again?

Qoheleth

9th May 2005, 02:07 PM

My guess is that SP Kieschnick is for Open Communion.

Why did we vote this guy in again?

I have no clue. But as it is an elected position, Politics and money usually play a role.

Q

filosofer

9th May 2005, 02:40 PM

I know many don't want to settle for this answer.... but it takes teaching Scripture, patience, teaching Scripture, more patience, and teaching Scripture. Repeat as necessary....

SPALATIN

9th May 2005, 03:05 PM

I know many don't want to settle for this answer.... but it takes teaching Scripture, patience, teaching Scripture, more patience, and teaching Scripture. Repeat as necessary....

teaching Scripture, patience; teaching Scripture, patience; teaching Scripture, patience;

I think I have it now. Problem is you still have those rogue Pastors who don't want to teach Scripture that way because it is to them a legalistic proposition. I don't agree with that, but hey it's their Judgement too.

filosofer

9th May 2005, 03:21 PM

There is only one group that is more obstinate than the liberal pastors in Synod. Guess who they are? ;)

SPALATIN

9th May 2005, 03:37 PM

There is only one group that is more obstinate than the liberal pastors in Synod. Guess who they are? ;)

Let's see now do they happen to occupy a website called Lutherquest? :scratch: ;)

Stubborn maybe but I find most of them to be more accurate than the liberals especially in the area of Communion.

Flipper

9th May 2005, 03:59 PM

but hey it's their Judgement too.

Huh?

Ok, I can see it as being a Lutheran/non-Lutheran issue but salvation as well?

filosofer

9th May 2005, 04:14 PM

There is only one group that is more obstinate than the liberal pastors in Synod. Guess who they are?

And both sides need teaching and patience. Arrogance is not limited to one side or the other.

ByzantineDixie

9th May 2005, 06:44 PM

Oh, I dunno, the thought of losing another Lutheran to the Eastern Pietism makes me cringe, how 'bout you?

Methinks you have been spending too much time watching your beloved Tigers. How else could one explain such a left field comment growing out of this discussion? :scratch:

Its the loss of our Orthodox Confessional Catholic Evangelical Faith that makes me cringe.

Exactly....

ByzantineDixie

9th May 2005, 06:58 PM

And both sides need teaching and patience. Arrogance is not limited to one side or the other.

But filo...is it really arrogant to want the Table respected? ...to expect Scripture, the confessions and the statements of the synod to be honored?

No...it is arrogant to think one is above the confessions, beyond the agreements of the synod and has a better interpretation of the Scripture than the rest of the Church.

Resolution of this problem lies at finding the root cause and extracting it...not in treating the symptom. The root cause (at least one of them) is exactly what Scott said...some pastors think of closed communion as being legalistic and withholding God's grace. (I know this first hand.) These pastors KNOW what the scriptures say, KNOW what the confessions say and KNOW what the synod statements say. Do you really think educating them further is the answer? Could you help me see how?

The mother in me thinks they need a time out....:sorry:

filosofer

9th May 2005, 11:10 PM

But filo...is it really arrogant to want the Table respected? ...to expect Scripture, the confessions and the statements of the synod to be honored?

And let's see - we defend the Gospel by hammering with the Law? ;) [For everyone, Rose and I like to tease - this is teasing!!)

I agree with you, Rose. It is not arrogant to want the Lord's Supper respected, Scripture honored.

No...it is arrogant to think one is above the confessions, beyond the agreements of the synod and has a better interpretation of the Scripture than the rest of the Church.

But it is also arrogant to go beyond the confessions in the other direction, too.

Resolution of this problem lies at finding the root cause and extracting it...not in treating the symptom. The root cause (at least one of them) is exactly what Scott said...some pastors think of closed communion as being legalistic and withholding God's grace. (I know this first hand.) These pastors KNOW what the scriptures say, KNOW what the confessions say and KNOW what the synod statements say. Do you really think educating them further is the answer? Could you help me see how?

Considering the poor job that we do in Synod regarding teaching pastors to be teachers (perhaps another thread), it is indeed a difficult thing. Having lived all over the US, moving 27 times, I have been exposed to more than my fair share of pastors - 80% at least were not good teachers, and half of them did not see that as a problem. They assume that if they speak they have taught the people. What hogwash (my theological word for such things)!!

The mother in me thinks they need a time out....:sorry:

In honor of Mother's Day yesterday, we'll let you - in fact, I would agree.... But as a mother, you know that "time-out" is different than driving them to 9th and Benton and dropping them off for the night "to teach them a lesson."

ByzantineDixie

9th May 2005, 11:21 PM

In honor of Mother's Day yesterday, we'll let you - in fact, I would agree.... But as a mother, you know that "time-out" is different than driving them to 9th and Benton and dropping them off for the night "to teach them a lesson."

^_^ You are killin' me. Good old Kansas City. I don't know...maybe if we threatened the wayward pastors with such a scare they'd shape up. Whoops...was that Law sneaking out again! :P

SPALATIN

10th May 2005, 08:45 AM

But filo...is it really arrogant to want the Table respected? ...to expect Scripture, the confessions and the statements of the synod to be honored?

No...it is arrogant to think one is above the confessions, beyond the agreements of the synod and has a better interpretation of the Scripture than the rest of the Church.

Resolution of this problem lies at finding the root cause and extracting it...not in treating the symptom. The root cause (at least one of them) is exactly what Scott said...some pastors think of closed communion as being legalistic and withholding God's grace. (I know this first hand.) These pastors KNOW what the scriptures say, KNOW what the confessions say and KNOW what the synod statements say. Do you really think educating them further is the answer? Could you help me see how?

The mother in me thinks they need a time out....:sorry:

Rose,

Time outs would be too easy on them. We should "Dare to Discipline" and use "Tough Love" and spank them. Although making them fend for their life in a bad part of town would probably be a good start, but if they still won't repent send them to bed without supper. :preach:

Willy

10th May 2005, 05:15 PM

SPALATIN

10th May 2005, 05:30 PM

Relax. Let the table be what it is--a foretaste of the feast to come, where all of God's children share in the abundance of God. Be grateful that some LCMS pastors are getting beyond the ideology that has so dominated the leadership of that synod. Truthfully, we ELCAers are benefitting from the LCMS hard line. People just don't get it. They are running from this rigidity.

Willy,

I resent your implication that the LCMS is too rigid. If you ask me we are not rigid enough and the ELCA should strive to be more rigid in this area. Yes, Grace is available through the means of the Eucharist, but there should still be unity in Doctrine as well. My last experience in an ELCA church showed me that they are too willing to sacrifice the Lutheran way for the Protestant way.

They had both traditional and contemporary services of which only the traditional had a confession/absolution. They had women serving communion (btw some LCMS churches do it and I think it is deplorable as it blurs the lines of service). While they did not have a female in a clergy position at that time they have had them.

Scott

PurpleBunny

10th May 2005, 05:40 PM

They had both traditional and contemporary services of which only the traditional had a confession/absolution. They had women serving communion (btw some LCMS churches do it and I think it is deplorable as it blurs the lines of service). While they did not have a female in a clergy position at that time they have had them.

The church that my pastor vicared at is like this--I found their Sunday night praise service was entirely too casual and informal--they had laypeople communing one another in groups at the front of the church, and not even church members... some of them could have been non-Lutheran for all the pastor knew as it was a praise service, and those attract a lot of people from various denominations.

I don't think they were quite that liberal when my pastor was there, though (keeping in mind my experience there was 3 years ago and my pastor was there in 1991).

ByzantineDixie

10th May 2005, 07:22 PM

Lotar

10th May 2005, 08:35 PM

Oh, I dunno, the thought of losing another Lutheran to the Eastern Pietism makes me cringe, how 'bout you?

Wait... I thought I was never Lutheran to begin with. :scratch:

:P

ChiRho

11th May 2005, 08:14 AM

Wait... I thought I was never Lutheran to begin with. :scratch:

:P

Who said I was talking about you? How narcissistic can one get, geez?

:P

SPALATIN

11th May 2005, 08:32 AM

Who said I was talking about you? How narcissistic can one get, geez?

:P

ChiRho,

How many others do you know that have left Lutheranism to go to Eastern Orthodox? Lotar is the only one I know.

ChiRho

11th May 2005, 08:38 AM

ChiRho,

How many others do you know that have left Lutheranism to go to Eastern Orthodox? Lotar is the only one I know.

More than one, unfortunately.

SPALATIN

11th May 2005, 08:44 AM

More than one, unfortunately.

Who else from this forum?

ChiRho

11th May 2005, 09:43 AM

Not necessarily in this forum, Scott.

SPALATIN

11th May 2005, 12:02 PM

Not necessarily in this forum, Scott.

Good, I was hoping I hadn't missed something somewhere. All things considered, I still consider Lotar to be a Christian regardless of doctrinal affiliation at this present time.:wave:

Lotar

11th May 2005, 08:21 PM

Who said I was talking about you? How narcissistic can one get, geez?

:P

Well, since the universe revolves around me, I can safely assume that people generally have me in mind and talk about me whenever they get the chance. :P

Considering that Pietism is a post-Reformation Lutheran development, I'm wondering how Eastern Pietism got it's start... :scratch:

;)

SPALATIN

12th May 2005, 08:58 AM

Well, since the universe revolves around me, I can safely assume that people generally have me in mind and talk about me whenever they get the chance. :P

Considering that Pietism is a post-Reformation Lutheran development, I'm wondering how Eastern Pietism got it's start... :scratch:

;)

Get over yourself Lotar.

I think that he considers Eastern Orthodox to be as works conscious as the RCC. So anything to do with a works relationship he considers pietistic.