Communion

[AngelusSax]

OK, I'm not making this a poll, so you can type in your answers adequately here.

Now, the ELCA is in open communion with a few other Christian denominations. Should this list be expanded? Or should we leave who we already are with?

A brief explanation as to why you feel how you do would be nice. I would answer, but surely in the "battles" with the LCMS and WELS people I've had on these forusm, you all already know where I stand.

[Music4Hym777]

Honestly, I think that we should not be in fellowship with anyone else but other Lutherans. I think it is insane that we are communion with groups that we dont believe the same doctrine of.

[Protoevangel]

For the most part, I agree with Music. How far do we sacrifice truth for the sake of a false sense of unity? How about Muslims? Why not pursue union with them? They believe Jesus existed. How much truth can be sacrificed?

[KagomeShuko]

I'm all for open communion. . .but not the way that it's stated in many of the ELCA bulletins just that "visitors are welcome to commune" rather than "all believers in Christ's death and resurrection are welcome to commune"

I have no problem with being in fellowship with the other denominations and am actually excited about the agreements with the United Methodists.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Melethiel]

I like what's stated in my church's bulletin, that all _baptized_ Christians are allowed to commune.

I'm against actually having "ecumenical agreements" with other denominations though, as I think it leads to a compromise of doctrine.

[Protoevangel]

These really are two completely different things we are all discussing. Open Communion and the full communion agreements with the other denominations.

Angelus, I am assuming you were asking about the full communion agreements with the other denominations, and not necessarily about "open Communion". Is that correct?

[AngelusSax]

Yes, I am talking about the full communion agreements with other denominations within the Christian faith.

[SemStudent08]

*stretch* Wow...this oughta be nice...our own room! Well, here's my two cents anyway. I think ecumenical agreements are wonderful things. We cannot grow in our own faith without being exposed to other ideas and perspectives. I never learned so much about my own faith than when reading how other people look at it. However, I do not like the trend I see within the ELCA's ecumenical agreements, I do think that we have, at times, sacrificed too much. There should be a way in which we can have such agreements and yet preserve Lutheran doctrine. What is that way? I'm not sure, but hopefully its something we can grow to, with God's help.

[RedneckAnglican]

I believe that all Christians should be allowed to partake of the true body and blood...Because they are Christian...not because they belong to a different type of club (Church)...I don't care if they are Episcopalian, Presbytarian, Methodist, or if they belong to the "Greater Little Zion Rose of Sharon Missonary Baptist Church of GOD, JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT, et al. Church name continued on next bus..." Only GOD and GOD alone knows what is in thier hearts, minds, and spirits...not us...not the Pastor...

[KagomeShuko]

I believe that all Christians should be allowed to partake of the true body and blood...Because they are Christian...not because they belong to a different type of club (Church)...I don't care if they are Episcopalian, Presbytarian, Methodist, or if they belong to the "Greater Little Zion Rose of Sharon Missonary Baptist Church of GOD, JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT, et al. Church name continued on next bus..." Only GOD and GOD alone knows what is in thier hearts, minds, and spirits...not us...not the Pastor...
That's exactly where I stand on this. I don't know all that much about some of the ecumenical agreements. . .pretty much I only know of the Episcopalean and Methodist, which haven't, at least from what they've gold me, seemed too far off from the Lutheran doctrine. I think we learn a lot from them, too. So many people are very closed-minded when it comes to looking at others' doctrine. That really saddens me, because they tend to make up what these people believe rather than looking at the doctrine themselves.

I still love Lutheran sermons the best, usually, followed by, I think, Episcopal. SDA focuses way too much on law. Methodist seems to jump all over the place.

Only God knows and he knows what is in the person's heart. . and He's offering His Grace and Himself, so who are we to deny that to believers?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[AngelusSax]

That really saddens me, because they tend to make up what these people believe rather than looking at the doctrine themselves.

Absolutely and AMEN!

Only God knows and he knows what is in the person's heart. . and He's offering His Grace and Himself, so who are we to deny that to believers?

Amen! :thumbsup:

[ctobola]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

To draw lines other than these when it comes to who is welcome at the Lord's table is arrogant, in my humble opinion.

In Christ, -Cloy

[Melethiel]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

To draw lines other than these when it comes to who is welcome at the Lord's table is arrogant, in my humble opinion.

In Christ, -Cloy
I agree. I've been told before that even though I agree with the LCMS on most issues, I can't commune there because I'm not an official member. That's just ridiculous, in my opinion, when I'm more Lutheran than many LCMS Lutherans are.

I'm more open to the way others, say Orthodox, practice closed communion, because they have completely different motives and practice behind it.

[ByzantineDixie]

I'm more open to the way others, say Orthodox, practice closed communion, because they have completely different motives and practice behind it.

What are those motives and practices that differentiate the Orthodox from the Lutherans who continue to practice closed communion?

[Melethiel]

What are those motives and practices that differentiate the Orthodox from the Lutherans who continue to practice closed communion?
From my understanding of the Orthodox view (which may be flawed), they believe that Confession and fasting is required before receiving Communion. Thus, Communion is closed to those of the parish that haven't confessed to the priest, and for visitors, it helps if the priest of their home parish is known to the one at the parish they are visiting. It's not enough to simply cognitively agree with Orthodox doctrine, one has to be a practicing Orthodox. (If I've got that wrong, John or someone feel free to correct me. ;) )

Compare that to what I've seen and been told by those of the LCMS (and I talk regularly by IM to several vicars and even pastors), the table is closed for the sake of some arbitrary outward confession, which is usually witnessed by official church membership (the concept of which wasn't even thought of for a long time). (Note that I'm paraphrasing.)

I'm not against closed communion per se, but I think that the boundaries used by the LCMS/WELS are far too strict. I can understand not wanting to commune those who don't believe in the Real Presence, but at least allow those who confess the BoC a place at the table.

End of today's fairly long rant. :D

[UberLutheran]

1. I support open Communion during the Communion service, as long as it is stated (or understood) that Communion is open to all baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence in the elements of the bread and wine.

2. While I support ecumenical efforts between the various denominations, there are very good reasons for the existence of denominations and denominations are not bad things in and of themselves. I support sharing resources between the ELCA and other denominations as long as there is basic agreement on important doctrines, e.g., the Real Presence in the Sacrament of Communion, the existence of (and need for) Sacraments, etc. It would be a good idea for the ELCA to prioritize what we believe is absolutely essential in doctrine, what is important but not essential, and what is a matter of denomination opinion and interpretation.

[JADVirginia]

My church invites all who recognize the Real Presence, and they use that language in the bulletin. Last week, I noted that the Pastor added an explanation that we really don't know how it happens, but that with the Word, the bread and the wine, Christ is there. It happened to be the VBS kick-off service, so maybe he was speaking to some Catholics in the audience.

So that leads to another question: We are not in any formal communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but they most definitely believe in the Real Presence. They even made up transubstantiation make their faith match medieval understandings of physics. So ... would anybody object to a Catholic taking communion with us? I would not!! (They don't like us at their alter, but ... hey ... Whose Supper is it, anyway?)

JADVirgina

[AngelusSax]

I personally think the rift between Lutherans and Catholics has lasted way too long, and I would like to see us in a full communion partnership with our Roman Catholic bretheren.

[KagomeShuko]

My church invites all who recognize the Real Presence, and they use that language in the bulletin. Last week, I noted that the Pastor added an explanation that we really don't know how it happens, but that with the Word, the bread and the wine, Christ is there. It happened to be the VBS kick-off service, so maybe he was speaking to some Catholics in the audience.

So that leads to another question: We are not in any formal communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but they most definitely believe in the Real Presence. They even made up transubstantiation make their faith match medieval understandings of physics. So ... would anybody object to a Catholic taking communion with us? I would not!! (They don't like us at their alter, but ... hey ... Whose Supper is it, anyway?)

JADVirgina

I don't have a problem with any Christians at the altar. I understand the "real presence" thing and I believe that, too. However, even those who SAY it is purely symbolic, well, we don't know their hearts. They do believe in Christ, so they are still worthy and like you said WHOSE supper is it?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[romaneagle13]

I personally think the rift between Lutherans and Catholics has lasted way too long, and I would like to see us in a full communion partnership with our Roman Catholic bretheren.

I agree with you and JADVirginia. I'd like to see the RC's in communion with the Anglicans and the Lutherans. But this will not happen unless the Catholics change their beliefs in Apolostic Succession and the ligitimacy of non-Catholic sacraments. You can offer communion to Catholics as my church (ECUSA) does, but most of them will not receive because their church does not allow them to. I remember when the rest of my family came to my church when they were visiting me. They are Roman Catholic, and even though the priest mentioned that communion is open to all baptized Christians, my parents did not go up (I knew they wouldn't). My brother, who is a very orthodox Catholic, even left the service and walked to the Catholic church down the street to receive communion there, and then came back to my church for the end of the service! So we Lutherans and Episcopalians can bend towards them, but unless we change drastically in order to meet their standards of Apostolic Succession and Recognition of the Papacy, they will not come to our tables. Having been a Catholic, I understand both sides and despite my wishes to the contrary, I think that full communion with Catholics is not possible.

[Tetzel]

1. I support open Communion during the Communion service, as long as it is stated (or understood) that Communion is open to all baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence in the elements of the bread and wine.



When I was in the ELCA, this bothered me to a great degree. Although I didn't like joint-communion with Episcopalains, at least they seemed to pass this requirement (although they do vary to the extreme and I'd bet that we could find someone, Spong perhaps, to deny the real presence). Presbyterians on the other hand clearly wouldn't qualify.

[Tetzel]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.


The creeds, at least Nicene and Athanasian, were designed in reaction to heresies. Heresies came out over time and that is why the Nicene creed is a more elaborate version of the earlier Apostles' Creed. As far as I know, theological doctrine denying the real presence of the Lord in communion is a much more recent heresy, and would need an update of the creeds. Some would say that the Confessions are such an update.

[KagomeShuko]

I tend to think the practice of close communion -- at least as practiced by the LCMS and WELS is a clear violation of our (Christian) heritage.

The early Church sent a very clear message about what Christians believe -- the Creeds.

To draw lines other than these when it comes to who is welcome at the Lord's table is arrogant, in my humble opinion.

In Christ, -Cloy

I definitely agree! I feel like if I go to a church that doesn't offer communion to all Christians, they are saying that God's grace is not available to those people :mad:

We cannot know the minds and hearts of men. . .only God knows that.

So, insofar as the creeds, that means all who believe in the creeds (and this would mean every single person who posts in the denominational threads here on CF) should be able to receive communion. I fully agree with this. To limit is to limit God. . .and we don't have that right.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ctobola]

Bridget,

Almost all Christian denominations believe in the "Real Presence." The question is how they define it... and some of them define it as a "real" spiritual connection with Christ (i.e., a memorial service).

For me, that's good enough -- I believe that the Creeds tell us what is essential for inclusion in the Christian community.

Excelsior! -Cloy

I don't have a problem with any Christians at the altar. I understand the "real presence" thing and I believe that, too. However, even those who SAY it is purely symbolic, well, we don't know their hearts. They do believe in Christ, so they are still worthy and like you said WHOSE supper is it?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

call me weird...call me liberal...call me whatever...but I always thought that anyone who called upon the name of CHRIST is welcome at the table...this is what scripture says to me...i don't think I'm wrong...
Including the Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses? They "call upon the name of 'CHRIST'", do they not? I think you set yourself at a great distance from the church catholic if you would welcome communion with those who promote these destructive heresies. Exactly how much truth are you willing to sacrifice?

[Protoevangel]

Are those groups calling on Christ... or someone/something using the name of Christ?

-Cloy
They would claim it is the same Christ. You claim it is not. Who is right? Is a Christ who fails to keep his word the true Christ? Are those who reject the True Presence calling on the true Christ? Regardless, the question remains... How much truth are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of false unity?

[Music4Hym777]

ATTENTION:


From the point where this got into synodical debating, the thread has been moved to the general TC-CL forum, you can continue any opposing synodical view debate, as long as it is civil, in there!

Thank you!
Monica

P.S. ELCAers who would like to discuss the issue among other ELCAers are allowed to still post in this thread.

[ctobola]

Great, as soon as the Church (capital C) convenes another council and addresses this, I'll be the first one to support it. :D

In the meantime, we have what we have and I tend to see it as authoritative -- not just in content, but in scope; and given that it comes from those who were geographically and temporally much closer to Christ's time on earth, I think that's enough.

In Christ, -Cloy

The creeds, at least Nicene and Athanasian, were designed in reaction to heresies. Heresies came out over time and that is why the Nicene creed is a more elaborate version of the earlier Apostles' Creed. As far as I know, theological doctrine denying the real presence of the Lord in communion is a much more recent heresy, and would need an update of the creeds. Some would say that the Confessions are such an update.

[Bollman]

My church states in the bulletin that 'all baptized believers are welcome to share renewal at the Lord's Table.'



Two weeks ago I invite my family, all active in my father's Evangelical Free-style church, to come celebrate my one-month-old daughter' baptism. My father refused to come but my mother and sister both came out. At first they baulked at the entire idea of the liturgy and the lutheran order of service as too ritualistic. But as the service passed and they became involved in worship by responsive reading and singing, their hearts changed.



They witnessed our girl’s baptism and our promise to raise her to know Jesus Christ. They let the words of "Borning Cry" settle into their hearts.



Then at the end of the service when it was time for communion, to my surprise they decided to participate. Afterwards they told me that they felt something different, something special at the alter that they had never felt before. I told them that it was the TRUE PRESENCE of CHRIST!!! And not the ritual THEY have been partaking of back at their home church.



For the first time they had shared the experience that I do in worship and communion and now understand why I am a Lutheran. Our open communion allowed for that learning experience.



-B

[Lutherrunner]

That is a great story!...thanks for sharing.....


My church states in the bulletin that 'all baptized believers are welcome to share renewal at the Lord's Table.'



Two weeks ago I invite my family, all active in my father's Evangelical Free-style church, to come celebrate my one-month-old daughter' baptism. My father refused to come but my mother and sister both came out. At first they baulked at the entire idea of the liturgy and the lutheran order of service as too ritualistic. But as the service passed and they became involved in worship by responsive reading and singing, their hearts changed.



They witnessed our girl’s baptism and our promise to raise her to know Jesus Christ. They let the words of "Borning Cry" settle into their hearts.



Then at the end of the service when it was time for communion, to my surprise they decided to participate. Afterwards they told me that they felt something different, something special at the alter that they had never felt before. I told them that it was the TRUE PRESENCE of CHRIST!!! And not the ritual THEY have been partaking off back at their home church.



For the first time they had shared the experience that I do in worship and communion and now understand why I am a Lutheran. Our open communion allowed for that learning experience.



-B

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I think that we need to expand ecumenical efforts in relation to communion because:
1) Lutheran theology emphasizes God's word and promise and the individual faith. Thus communing at another church or another member communing with us doesn't change or hurt the sacrament towards us.
2) As long as we (individually and as a church) profess the true presence of Christ and the Forgiveness of Sins to all who believe we are not surrendering anything by welcoming others, but rather encouraging them to partake in this thanksgiving feast we marvel in.
3) I believe Ecumenism supports the supper for what Christ established it to be. I think it is rediculous to believe Christ wanted it to be used as a confessional, devisive practice. We should "drink of it often" and we should welcome all who in their heart decide to come to the feast.
4) The very name "communion" suggests community. If we believe that it is a connection between us, Christ, and the whole of believers, then anyone who we see as being saved we should feel comfortable communing with.
5) Perhaps Luther more than any other Church Father/Reformer is the reason we have closed communion and see it as a confessional statement in many churches today. Both Zwingli and Calvin of the reformed tradition sought fellowship with Luther and the Lutherans and Luther turned them down. The minute we say we think Luther was wrong in his attitude and words toward other prodestants, we are taking up a responsibility to not follow that path but to build a new bridge of fellowship.
6) Ultimately, Paul says that the Church is not to judge who comes to the sacrament, but that each individual should judge themself before approaching. Thus we should allow anyone who approaches to receive communion and if we ourselves feel uncomfortable taking it somewhere else, then it is our responsiblity-not the ELCA or the other church- to say so.
7) The minute we stop striving to find more unity and halt the ecumenical movement, is the minute it has failed and dies. Remember, Paul calls us to find unity and not let divisions rise up among us.
With that said I don't think that means in any way that agreeing to be in full communion should be an excuse to stop talks too. There are doctrinal concerns that we should be continually in dialogue with, regardless as to whether or not we have found common ground already.

[paladin_carvin]

I unfortunately have not had time to read up on everything said, but I can state my oppinion on a humble ELCA member.

I'm all for letting non-members take communion. But the thing that needs to be realized is that the Lutheran communion is a 'real' communion, not a symbol. Jesus said that the bread and wine were indeed his body and blood, and the Lutherans recognize this. That is why I do not take communion elsewhere. I think the symbolic communion of the reform theologist are pointless. I can get bread and wine elsewhere and call it a symbol of whatever I want. I think it is important that people taking communion know what they are taking and take it seriously. This is why I disagree with the ELCA's policy of letting children take communion...

Anywho, that's the basics of what I think.

[Tetzel]

Honestly, I think that we should not be in fellowship with anyone else but other Lutherans. I think it is insane that we are communion with groups that we dont believe the same doctrine of.

I agree and I would hope that the LCMS and ELCA could agree to joint communion, even if the full doctrinal unity necessary for a merger is missing.

I don't mean to debate here, just wanted to give you a thumbs up :thumbsup:

[agapelovejoy]

I believe that our policy on open communion is a good thing. When we have believing christains in our church, the last thing we should do is exclude them from the meal which Jesus gave to us and commanded us to do. Communion isn't something that should be exclusive, anyone who believes in Christ should be allowed to the table. I think that closing the door will only push people of other denominations away from us, and what the church really needs is unity, not division and wall. I think this is something which really needs to be prayed about more often.

[RayJGentry]

i think the stance of the ELCA should be that we will work with all denominations in the work of the great commission. we however should not enter in to agreements that "prove" how we're willing to work together simply to have an alegiance on paper to prove to people we work well with others. i don't believe that we should have this concept of "full communion." we should simply work with others on issues we see eye to eye, help hold each other accountable for blatent disregard to scripture and on issues of lesser importance we should allow them to practice as we would expect them to allow us. and since this topic is here too, i do believe that open communion is in fact a good thing. whether or not someone who communes in an ELCA church agrees with everything, it's God's sacrament, not ours. i doubt Christ will look down on us for that.