Who should commune? [Archive]

RegularGuy

21st December 2007, 02:43 PM

DailyBlessings

21st December 2007, 04:05 PM

UberLutheran

21st December 2007, 05:00 PM

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

Communion is between the individual and God.

"Whosoever will, may come."

Melethiel

21st December 2007, 05:05 PM

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

RegularGuy

21st December 2007, 05:40 PM

Where's the "other option"? I don't quite agree with any of them.
You don't need a poll option to state your position.

What do you think?

Melethiel

21st December 2007, 05:58 PM

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

JoeCatch

21st December 2007, 07:05 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

RegularGuy

21st December 2007, 07:33 PM

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

:amen:

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

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

RegularGuy

21st December 2007, 07:36 PM

I'm not quite sure exactly what I think, to be honest, but I do think restrictions should be set for Baptized Christians who believe in the Real Presence.
Whose responsibility would it be to determine if those presenting themselves for Communion believe in the Real Presence?

DailyBlessings

21st December 2007, 07:48 PM

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

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

Melethiel

21st December 2007, 07:58 PM

Whose responsibility would it be to determine if those presenting themselves for Communion believe in the Real Presence?
Ideally, I think one should talk to the pastor before communing at ANY new church. In practice though, it would probably boil down to a statement, either spoken or in the bulletin, and trusting that people agree with it if they come up.

JoeCatch

21st December 2007, 08:47 PM

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

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

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

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

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

RevCowboy

22nd December 2007, 02:09 AM

:amen:

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

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

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

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

DailyBlessings

22nd December 2007, 02:25 AM

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

RegularGuy

22nd December 2007, 11:29 AM

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

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

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

Edial

22nd December 2007, 11:34 PM

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

Who SHOULD commune with us?

What a great thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, :)
Ed

AngelusSax

1st January 2008, 08:21 PM

Ed,

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

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

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

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

Jwell

10th January 2008, 04:59 AM

Hi,

I voted for, "all Christians". Here's my longer answer:

The only two requirements for entrance to the Lord's supper should be baptism and belief in the real, bodily presence of Christ.

It's vitally important that a Christian first be baptized before taking Communion. First, historically, this is the way things were done. In the early Church, baptism (and not confirmation (in the sense we think of it today)) was what was required. (Even today, the EO, commune infants), Those churches which have made confirmation a requirement to partake of the Lord's supper, are to my knowledge veering away from "catholic" practice, especially waiting as long as many do. The fact that many congregations do not even consider confirmation a sacrament, but a rite, further complicates the issue, in that it is no longer "grace alone" that precedes entrance to the Lord's table, but your own testimony of faith at the age of reason or even long after. (And they go after the baptists for their "believer's baptism"? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black). In other words, you are not progressing from sacrament to sacrament, from grace to grace, but meriting entrance to the supper, by something that is arising out of you (albeit by grace). It's the difference between synergism and monergism. Baptism is vital therefore, as a requirement, because it protects the "grace alone" nature of said requirement.

As for, believing in the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I think so long as the person communing, understands that this is what the Church teaches and that she will not veer from this, and secondly is not openly hostile to this, but rather says, "I struggle with believing this, God help me". Those who I would feel uncomfortable communing with, would be those who are openly defiant of the real presence and I would expect the Church to refrain from distributing communion to them. This is more of a disciplinary issue though, than a "this or that should be a requirement". Like I said, so long as someone is not openly hostile to it, I don't really have a problem. But I would say, so that there is no confusion, that generally speaking only those who believe in the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist can partake of the same. And for everyone else, the Church should allow entrance based on the individual's situation.

I would not want to have a "no you can't take communion if you don't believe it's Christ's true body and body" policy etched in stone. To go back to what I said about making our personal testimony "criteria", without partaking of the Sacrament, the most the Church can hope for in individual's who don't yet believe it's Christ's true body and blood, is an intellectual assent. Even if we can say that it's an honest trust in the Sacrament, this trust is obviously coming from somewhere else than the Sacrament itself, which is possible, but odd (ie faith would be coming outside the normal means of grace). The only way to acquire true faith in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is to partake of it. To have it confront you in all it's realism and not to have you confront it with theological, psychological and biblical arguments in tow.

Jwell
(former LCMS, currently attending an ELCA church, but still looking for a church that I can settle in for good).

RevCowboy

10th January 2008, 03:03 PM

Good point Jwell,

You actually raise a whole host of issues that go with confirmation.

In the early Church confirmation came right after Baptism. In fact, confirmation is the sealing with oil and laying on of hands by the pastor which happen in Lutheran Baptismal rights. All Baptized Lutherans are technically confirmed. Confirmation should be called catechesis.

The reason confirmation was separated from the baptismal rite is that as the early church grew, there weren't enough bishops to do the baptizing, so they let the presbyters do it in their place. Then when a Bishop did come through town, he would confirm all the people who had been baptized since his last visit. In the Anglican church, the Bishop is the still the one who does all the confirmations in the diocese. Since the Bishop is the gatekeeper to apostolic succession, his laying on of hands is necessary for confirmation.

This also points to something interesting about Lutheranism, Lutheran Pastors are called to highest office of teaching in congregation are technically like mini-bishops in their congregations. In the early part of the 20th century many congregation would only allow the pastor to preach from the pulpit, not even when the Bishop came to town did he get to preach in the pulpit because he was not called by that particular congregation.

Anyways, this reason that we Lutherans have this thing called "confirmation" that really isn't confirmation is because it is a vestige of centuries of Christian tradition that our confessions and theology don't agree with. Our hymnals call confirmation Affirmation of Baptism, but essentially is our version of a Bah Mitsveh, a right of passage into adulthood that we have twisted so much that its become our sad gateway to the Lord's Table.

I think that with movement to child communion in the ELCA and ELCIC, that confirmation has lost much of its attraction to the kids who take it. Basically 12 year old kids's brains have not developed the abstract thinking skills that are required to begin to appreciate the stuff that they are learning in confirmation. Instead they are usually subjected to something that feels like more school and usually hate confirmation. While this will probably get me turfed in a few congregations, I think I will try to turn what confirmation is now into actual catechesis and push it back to high school or even first year university. Instead we should have some sort of rite that is simply about celebrating a 12 or 13 year old's transition into adulthood, and so that grandma won't be disappointed about not getting some pictures of little Johnny.

::rant off::

Sorry for ranting a little there, this whole issue of baptism, confirmation and who gets to commune is one that I am passionate about and that I am sure I will spend lots of time "discussing" with parishioners who disagree.

Edial

11th January 2008, 01:29 AM

Good post, Jwell. :)

Edial

11th January 2008, 01:41 AM

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 03:11 AM

Concerning a requirement of being baptized in order to commune.

Thief on the Cross certainly was qualified to be communed although he was not baptized.

What do we do if a person becomes a believer and wants to commune this very Sunday?
Do we tell him he needs to be baptized first?

In other words, do we deny him communion?

Thanks, Ed

Yes, we tell the person they need to be baptized first.

If someone really wants to take communion on Sunday morning and they are not baptized, then baptize them Sunday morning!

If they won't want to Baptized, but still want to take communion, then perhaps its time to have some catechesis sessions. There is no reason not to be Baptized and Baptism is the opportunity for the Body of Christ to show hospitality and invite the newly baptized to the table of the Lord. Baptism is also one of the ways in which we discern the Body of Christ.

Edial

11th January 2008, 03:20 AM

Yes, we tell the person they need to be baptized first.

If someone really wants to take communion on Sunday morning and they are not baptized, then baptize them Sunday morning!

If they won't want to Baptized, but still want to take communion, then perhaps its time to have some catechesis sessions. There is no reason not to be Baptized and Baptism is the opportunity for the Body of Christ to show hospitality and invite the newly baptized to the table of the Lord. Baptism is also one of the ways in which we discern the Body of Christ.
OK.

Do we deny communion to someone on deathbed who just got converted and wants communion?

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 03:39 AM

OK.

Do we deny communion to someone on deathbed who just got converted and wants communion?

Well... I think the answer is the same. This would be a good time to have an emergency baptism and emergency communion. If you have time to do one, you probably have time to do the other. And if I had to pick one, I would pick baptism 200% of the time. (Yes I meant to type 200 :thumbsup:)

Edial

11th January 2008, 04:46 AM

Well... I think the answer is the same. This would be a good time to have an emergency baptism and emergency communion. If you have time to do one, you probably have time to do the other. And if I had to pick one, I would pick baptism 200% of the time. (Yes I meant to type 200 :thumbsup:)
I understand this. I certainly agree that baptism is very important. :)

But the thief on the cross went to heaven without being baptized.
If he was not denied heaven unbaptized why deny communion?

Also, how would you make a Scriptural argument concerning communing only the baptized people?

Thanks, :)
Ed

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 03:14 PM

I understand this. I certainly agree that baptism is very important. :)

But the thief on the cross went to heaven without being baptized.
If he was not denied heaven unbaptized why deny communion?

Also, how would you make a Scriptural argument concerning communing only the baptized people?

Thanks, :)
Ed

Okay, so I had been artfully dodging the question, like a good student of theology....

There are number of answers to this question.

Firstly, when I am serving communion, if I were to see that there was an unbaptized person at the rail I would NOT deny them the sacrament. Perhaps differently than more conservative Christians, who would claim that they take the Lord's supper seriously so to deny someone is loving, I take it seriously in the other manner. I don't think that anyone comes to commune unbidden by the Holy Spirit. I also think that most important part of discerning the body is found in the dynamic between 1Cor 11 and 12. Paul is talking about those who deny their poor brothers food because of the Roman Class system. He is not talking about an intellectual understanding of the presence of Christ. To deny someone who is desiring nourishment at the Table of the Lord would be like to deny family member or friend and it would be failing to discern the body. It would me who is taking to my condemnation when I deny someone what is God's to freely give.

Now this being said, at the same time there is not reason not to be Baptized. There is no requirement for it. Scripture does not say anywhere that you need to baptized in order to commune. Rather 99% of the time the first thing that someone does once they become a Christian is get baptized. When the Apostles go out in acts, they baptize people, they don't start with the Lord's Supper.

We also know from the early church that their practice was to Baptize and then commune. It isn't really about Baptism being the requirement for communion, but rather Baptism is about hospitality. It is the chance for the Body of Christ to welcome and claim a new member as one of their own. Coming to the Lord's table unbaptized is kind of like showing up at a friend's house unannounced for dinner. You will mostly likely be welcomed heartily by your friend, however had he the chance to invite, properly prepare and welcome you, he would have been properly hospitable.

So, Baptism might be seen as a requirement for partaking at the table of the Lord, it really isn't because there is no requirements for being Baptized.

As far as the thief on the cross... well I had some interesting thoughts about him as I drifted to sleep. Don't take this as any sort of doctrine, but I think in a strange way the thief was baptized. Sacraments have three parts, Command of Christ, Promise of God and Earthly Element. In this short story of Luke, we have God in the Earthly element of flesh. We have the promise of God and in the thief's desire to be remembered by Christ we have the command.

Now that was a bit of stretch, but there is significant parallel between the two situations. It is not so much about the thief being unbaptized, but about the opportunity for God to claim us. In Baptisim God proclaims to us that We are His Beloved and with us He is well pleased. You can take that in the same way as Christ proclamation to the thief on the cross. Christ was welcoming him into his presence and claiming him as his own.

Melethiel

11th January 2008, 03:19 PM

The Roman Catholics refer to the thief's baptism as the "baptism of desire."

Edial

11th January 2008, 03:58 PM

Okay, so I had been artfully dodging the question, like a good student of theology....

There are number of answers to this question.

Firstly, when I am serving communion, if I were to see that there was an unbaptized person at the rail I would NOT deny them the sacrament. Perhaps differently than more conservative Christians, who would claim that they take the Lord's supper seriously so to deny someone is loving, I take it seriously in the other manner. I don't think that anyone comes to commune unbidden by the Holy Spirit. I also think that most important part of discerning the body is found in the dynamic between 1Cor 11 and 12. Paul is talking about those who deny their poor brothers food because of the Roman Class system. He is not talking about an intellectual understanding of the presence of Christ. To deny someone who is desiring nourishment at the Table of the Lord would be like to deny family member or friend and it would be failing to discern the body. It would me who is taking to my condemnation when I deny someone what is God's to freely give.

Now this being said, at the same time there is not reason not to be Baptized. There is no requirement for it. Scripture does not say anywhere that you need to baptized in order to commune. Rather 99% of the time the first thing that someone does once they become a Christian is get baptized. When the Apostles go out in acts, they baptize people, they don't start with the Lord's Supper.

We also know from the early church that their practice was to Baptize and then commune. It isn't really about Baptism being the requirement for communion, but rather Baptism is about hospitality. It is the chance for the Body of Christ to welcome and claim a new member as one of their own. Coming to the Lord's table unbaptized is kind of like showing up at a friend's house unannounced for dinner. You will mostly likely be welcomed heartily by your friend, however had he the chance to invite, properly prepare and welcome you, he would have been properly hospitable.

So, Baptism might be seen as a requirement for partaking at the table of the Lord, it really isn't because there is no requirements for being Baptized.

As far as the thief on the cross... well I had some interesting thoughts about him as I drifted to sleep. Don't take this as any sort of doctrine, but I think in a strange way the thief was baptized. Sacraments have three parts, Command of Christ, Promise of God and Earthly Element. In this short story of Luke, we have God in the Earthly element of flesh. We have the promise of God and in the thief's desire to be remembered by Christ we have the command.

Now that was a bit of stretch, but there is significant parallel between the two situations. It is not so much about the thief being unbaptized, but about the opportunity for God to claim us. In Baptisim God proclaims to us that We are His Beloved and with us He is well pleased. You can take that in the same way as Christ proclamation to the thief on the cross. Christ was welcoming him into his presence and claiming him as his own.
OK.

But if you want to speculate concerning the thief, I would suggest the following theory that I have.

We know that baptism needs water.

Christ died in just few hours after being crucified. There was an earthquake after that. It also is most probable that it rained.
So, in a way the theif was baptized.

No, it is not a doctrine and I still believe that baptism is not a doctrinal necessity prior to one's communion. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

Edial

11th January 2008, 04:16 PM

The Roman Catholics refer to the thief's baptism as the "baptism of desire."
Yes, I know.

But Vatican is a poor authority on Scriptures despite of their claims.
Their theological gymnastics and political mating certainly make their opinions on Scriptures bias to their subjective views.

Baptism needs water.

AC 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to
some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

RC appears to have a tendency to "spiritualize" reality.

(I guess their reshuffling of the Nativity scene reassures me of my opinion). :)

I personally do not like bullies.

Thanks, :)
Ed

CaliforniaJosiah

11th January 2008, 04:41 PM

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

Who SHOULD commune with us?

I belong to an LCMS congregation, so I'm not sure I'm to post here, BUT hopefully that's okay....

My OWN view (not speaking for anyone or anything otherwise) is that the Sacrament belongs to Jesus, not us, and that while we have the responsibility to teach so that they have a basis to do as Scirpture says, "Let a man examine HIMSELF" and so that they may do as Luther states in the Small Catechism under "Who receives this Sacrament worthily?" can be fulfilled, nonetheless, the congregation and/or pastor is not a "gatekeeper" who may inappropriately keep Christ from Christians. The congregations role is to education, not keep people from Jesus.

I think that the Sacrament is for those Baptized, who profess Christ, who accept Real Presence and who are forgiving and seeking to be forgiven.

I DO think that some education/training in Law, Gospel and Real Presence is good (again, that education role of the church). I suspect that could be done in a few hours and among those of 6 or so up, but not being a professional educator, I'd need to leave that to others.

I have no issues with Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox recieving the Sacrament since they all accept Real Presence and such can be repentant and believing. I have more "issues" with Baptist, Presbyterians, UCC and others that do not accept Real Presence. Although I wouldn't ASSUME anything. I know for a fact that there are Catholics AND Lutherans who do not accept Real Presence but hold to quite Zwingian views, and I well suspect (but do not know) that some Presbyterians, etc., may well embrace Real Presence. To some extent, we need to take people at their word here.

The DIFFICULTY, IMHO, with this issue of praxis is that no matter how it is handled, it's going to be a bit arbitrary and no doubt will - at times - exclude the worthy (to use Luther's term) and invite the unworthy. Faith is a INNER thing. It resides in the hearts of INDIVIDUALS. We cannot "see" such faith.

I do not think that CHRIST'S Holy Sacrament should be used as a club or as bait. And I think it is often used as both. It is not OURS to abuse, it is HIS gift. The Gospel should not be used as a trick or club to harm or carrot to encourage some behavior we desire. I think all this is abusing the Gift.

My father (a non Lutheran pastor) encourged us kids to worship at other congregations of other denominations, too. I've been to MANY churches - from African American Pentecostal to Roman Catholic. My Dad's advise about ALL things was this: "You are the GUEST in the home of Christian brothers and sisters. You will show love and above all RESPECT to them, their church and their policies." That includes Communion. His advise to me was: Don't do it, no matter what the bulletin says or what my friend says or what the usher tells me - rather, speak PRIVATELY and BEFOREHAND with the minsiter (by email or phone if necessary). State - openly and honestly - what my views are regarding the Eucharist, invite questions and answer them all fully and honestly. IF the presiding minister specifically invites me to participate - I may (the invitation is mine to accept or not). IF the presiding minsiter counsels to not participate, thank him, do NOT be offended or take it personally, and follow his counsel. That's always what I have done.

Now, in my own church, there is a card in the guest packet that speaks of the policy. It's not quite OPEN communion since it speaks of Baptism, repentance, and quite a lot about Real Presence. But it's not CLOSED communion since there's not a single mention of membership in any denomination. But, when I got this packet, I ignored that until I had an opportunity to speak with the pastor. He invited me to participate, and the next Sunday, I did.

Thank you for reading my very fallible and personal thoughts....

Pax

- Josiah

.

BabyLutheran

11th January 2008, 04:44 PM

great post!

Edial

11th January 2008, 04:59 PM

Yep ... good post.

BabyLutheran

11th January 2008, 05:30 PM

I think I finally met someone with whom I share almost exactly the same point of view on the topic.

I just wish I could write it down that clearly.

stumpjumper

11th January 2008, 05:52 PM

At my ELCA Church, we have open communion but the Pastor does explicitly say that only those who are Baptized Christians and believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior may commune.

At my previous Church, nothing was stated explicitly beyond the Baptismal requirement.

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 06:02 PM

The Roman Catholics refer to the thief's baptism as the "baptism of desire."

I really should have know that after doing the theology part of my undergrad at a Catholic School. But its nice to know that I am not the only one who has seen some sort of Baptismal characteristics to Christ's promise to the thief.

OK.

But if you want to speculate concerning the thief, I would suggest the following theory that I have.

We know that baptism needs water.

Christ died in just few hours after being crucified. There was an earthquake after that. It also is most probable that it rained.
So, in a way the theif was baptized.

No, it is not a doctrine and I still believe that baptism is not a doctrinal necessity prior to one's communion. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

Good point about the water! I am starting think that there was a certain sacramentality to that moment that I hadn't really considered before this discussion.

What would be the reason not to be baptized before communion? Part of participating in the Body of Christ is allowing the Body of Christ to recognize you. If an unbaptized person truly wanted communion they would also truly want to be baptized. Taking the Body and Blood of Christ into yourself is acknowledging your part in the Church and submitting to its practices and theology. This is why we don't all do communion at home by ourselves. The Lord's Supper binds us together as One Body and therefore the Body needs to, as a part of its preparation for communing, be allowed to recognize and identify that One Body.

Scripture may not outright say that you need to Baptized for communion, but the fact that all new converts were immediately baptized implies that Baptism is the first thing you do when becoming a Christ. We also have to recognize the practice of the early church, they were following this order of things right from the time Acts.

Yes, I know.

But Vatican is a poor authority on Scriptures despite of their claims.
Their theological gymnastics and political mating certainly make their opinions on Scriptures bias to their subjective views.

Baptism needs water.

AC 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to
some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

RC appears to have a tendency to "spiritualize" reality.

(I guess their reshuffling of the Nativity scene reassures me of my opinion). :)

I personally do not like bullies.

Thanks, :)
Ed

The Vatican may have a myopic theological view, but the nice thing about North American Catholics is that most, especially clergy and scholars, seem to be annoyed by the Vatican as much as we are. You should have heard some of my Roman Catholic priest professors go one about their annoyance with the Vatican.:doh:

CaliforniaJosiah

11th January 2008, 06:21 PM

At my ELCA Church, we have open communion but the Pastor does explicitly say that only those who are Baptized Christians and believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior may commune.

I'm pretty comfortable with that, but I'm curious (if I may ask), what about children? Is there a policy (formal or informal) about their participation?

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

Edial

11th January 2008, 06:34 PM

I'm pretty comfortable with that, but I'm curious (if I may ask), what about children? Is there a policy (formal or informal) about their participation?

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.
At my church children are not communed, but blessed when they are brought to the altar by the parents.

Melethiel

11th January 2008, 06:52 PM

At my church the pastor has a "first communion" class for kids around 2nd grade, so if their parents want them to take communion before the official confirmation ~ 7th grade, they can do that.

stumpjumper

11th January 2008, 07:16 PM

I'm pretty comfortable with that, but I'm curious (if I may ask), what about children? Is there a policy (formal or informal) about their participation?

My oldest daughter went through first communion classes last year at age 7.

My boys will start in about a month when they're 7 as well. If they have not gone through the communion classes, they will receive a blessing.

Also, if they have received communion at another Lutheran Church, they would be welcome to commune too.

CaliforniaJosiah

11th January 2008, 07:40 PM

At my church children are not communed, but blessed when they are brought to the altar by the parents.

So in your ELCA, no child may recieve communion (is that up to 18 or what?).

Our good brother Stumpjumper posted: "At my ELCA Church, we have open communion but the Pastor does explicitly say that only those who are Baptized Christians and believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior may commune." Which caused me to ask about children, because I'm not SURE this policy would apply to say a 3 year old (but maybe it does).

MY congregation (not ELCA) seems to have a bit of a "mixed" policy here. It seems to be quite restrictive with childen - GENERALLY not inviting those who have not completed First Communion (although I note that some younger kids who have completed it in a Catholic church are welcomed - I think, I of course am not privy to the situation). But for adults (and that may mean older teens), the situation seems not too unlike what Stumpjumper was saying.

But in your ELCA church, no children take communion? Under any circumstances?

Just wondering....

Thank you!!!

May all the Eucharistic Blessings be yours....

- Josiah

.

Protoevangel

11th January 2008, 07:42 PM

Sounds strange to me... "All" or "All baptized" may commune... "except you kids, you aren't worthy".

Is this some kind of Baptist-influenced "age of reason" thing going on? ;)

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 07:42 PM

I'm pretty comfortable with that, but I'm curious (if I may ask), what about children? Is there a policy (formal or informal) about their participation?

Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah

.

The Communion of the Baptized means, anyone who is baptized regardless of age. However, many congregation have different conventions. Some have first communion in grade 2, grade 5, after confirmation or at other times. After having done enough children's sermons where 2 year olds can express what happens in communion better than most adults, I don't think there should be any age restriction. If we can trust unto God the responsibility of being the gatekeeper of his grace in infant baptism, we should be able to do the same thing with the Lord's Supper. We should trust that God takes care of it when they are not old enough to understand (although who can really explain who the Real Presence works?) and then teach them when they are.

I think that denying baptized children communion for years is truly one of the ways in which we fail to discern the Body of Christ and take the Lord's supper to our condemnation.

Protoevangel

11th January 2008, 07:45 PM

stumpjumper

11th January 2008, 07:47 PM

I should clarify, as I think our situations are very similar, that Children must have either gone through communion classes or have already received communion in another Church.

IIRC, my current Pastor's reasoning was that once they have communed at another Christian Church and have been Baptized, they should not be denied communion if they profess Christian belief and recognize that we believe we are receiving the real body and blood of Christ Jesus.

Even if they did not undergo Lutheran Communion classes they would be allowed to commune if they already partook at another Christian Church because the reasoning is similar to why Lutherans never re-Baptize as it calls into question the original efficacy of the sacrament.

ETA: There is no age restriction for first communion classes at my current congregation. Even those too young to read can attend the classes. I believe my Pastor said something along the lines even more pronounce along the lines of "if they can chew and swallow" they can begin to partake communion.

CaliforniaJosiah

11th January 2008, 07:49 PM

My oldest daughter went through first communion classes last year at age 7.

My boys will start in about a month when they're 7 as well. If they have not gone through the communion classes, they will receive a blessing.

Also, if they have received communion at another Lutheran Church, they would be welcome to commune too.

Thanks for that clarification!!

So, there are First Communion Classes at 7 (presumably for those Baptized). THEN they are welcomed....

But for adults (fuzzy definition?), no such class is required?

In my LCMS church, the First Communion classes are at 10 (which I PERSONALLY think is too late) and THEN they are welcome. But, mysteriously, there's no such requirement for adults. I confess I'm not entirely sure how that all works (I'm now curious to email my pastor) with teens. I know I was probably still 17 when I first visited the church and had never attended First Communion Classes. I did (sort of) attend Confirmation Classes but I was not yet Confirmated (that was last September). I did understand Real Presence and he knew that before I first participated in the Holy Eucharist. It seems to ME that our church has kinda two policies - one for kids and a different one for adults. I don't disagree with that particularly, I just see the difference. Just curious how this "works" in other Lutheran congregations....

Thanks again!!!

Pax

- Josiah

.

CaliforniaJosiah

11th January 2008, 08:02 PM

The Communion of the Baptized means, anyone who is baptized regardless of age. However, many congregation have different conventions. Some have first communion in grade 2, grade 5, after confirmation or at other times. After having done enough children's sermons where 2 year olds can express what happens in communion better than most adults, I don't think there should be any age restriction. If we can trust unto God the responsibility of being the gatekeeper of his grace in infant baptism, we should be able to do the same thing with the Lord's Supper. We should trust that God takes care of it when they are not old enough to understand (although who can really explain who the Real Presence works?) and then teach them when they are.

I think that denying baptized children communion for years is truly one of the ways in which we fail to discern the Body of Christ and take the Lord's supper to our condemnation.

Interesting!

So, you are of the position that Baptized babies should be given communion (I think that's the Eastern Orthodox position????)? Or are you suggesting at two or thereabouts?

IF so, I see your point.... I am curious (if I may) about your understanding of the Scripture about "Let a man EXAMINE himself." Luther advises in his Catechism that "that person is WELL PREPARED who has faith in the words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." IMHO, that seems to imply, anyway, that one be able to examine himself (for what - I'm not 100% certain) and has faith in forgiveness (which seems to imply some acknowledgement of sin and grace, law and Gospel, ten commandments/gospel of Jesus?). Your thoughts on that?

Kinda related.... My Dad is a pastor and for years our church did a summer VBS (our church now has so few kids that that's sadly been discontinued; my Dad's church is "graying" badly). Anyway, I was a part of those each year. My parents have this video of what is obviously the evening closing program of some jungle themed VBS. I dont remember it, but I've seen this video about a hundred times - nearly all privately, by myself. There I am. Cute, blonde boy in white shorts and a yellow VBS tshirt. And I'm talking about Jesus to the parents and stuff. This must have been my assignment in some way, I don't know. Every time I watch that kid (somehow known and somehow not by me), I'm blown away. This little boy KNOWS Jesus. He has an amazing, very close, very personal relationship with Jesus. And he knows He is with him and loves him. When I was younger and still at home, when I felt "down" or when "doubts annoy" I would dig out that video - now grainy, and listen to that boy..... I agree with you, we should NEVER under estimate the faith of children. They may not be theologians, they may not be able to articulate things the way we can, but that's not faith, is it?

Thanks for discussing this with me!! I appreciate the discussion and respect!

Pax

- Josiah

.

Protoevangel

11th January 2008, 08:31 PM

IF so, I see your point.... I am curious (if I may) about your understanding of the Scripture about "Let a man EXAMINE himself." Luther advises in his Catechism that "that person is WELL PREPARED who has faith in the words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." IMHO, that seems to imply, anyway, that one be able to examine himself (for what - I'm not 100% certain) and has faith in forgiveness (which seems to imply some acknowledgement of sin and grace, law and Gospel, ten commandments/gospel of Jesus?). Your thoughts on that?
Hey CJ,

Long time no talk.

First of all, if you must be self-examined (well prepared), but do not know what to examine yourself for... how can you examine yourself, how can you prepare when you do not know what or how to prepare? ;)

Second, I think no one is prepared as one who has the unquestioning faith of a child.

"And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." "
- Matthew 18:3

"Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." "
- Matthew 19:14

If "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these", then so do the things of the kingdom, the promises of the kingdom.

CaliforniaJosiah

11th January 2008, 08:41 PM

Hey CJ,

Long time no talk.

Almost a year ago, I was "lead to the exit" shall we say (the boot print on my _____ still hurts, LOL) and I "moved on" (in every sense). I now post elsewhere (WAY TOO MUCH just as I did here). Fortunately, as a Lutheran, I may not serve on staff there which joyously keeps me out of the gunsight and alive...

In the same spirit of Matthew 2:20, I am VERY cautiously and occasionally poking my nose back here - mostly limiting myself to the quasi friendly world of Lutherans (last September, I officially became Lutheran).

I have no intentions of becoming active here again (I've moved across town) but if all goes well, I may become a guest now and then. I miss the GOOD people over here a LOT.

Second, I think no one is prepared as one who has the unquestioning faith of a child.

Perhaps....

Thank you!

Pax

- Josiah

.

JoeCatch

11th January 2008, 09:07 PM

Practices regarding the communion of infants and children vary from congregation to congregation within the ELCA. The ELCA does permit infant communion (as do several other Lutheran church bodies around the world). In my congregation, children who are unconfirmed don't commune; they simply receive a blessing. I'm fully in favor of the practice of infant communion myself; I can see no reason for denying them the sacrament if they are baptized.

The following figures are over a decade old, but for those who are curious, here's the breakdown:
"Nelson said the practice of administration to communion varies widely in the 5.2-million-member denomination, adding that congregational reports show that a preponderance of churches admit children to communion at the fifth-grade level. But the reports also show wide diversity in communion practices among the 11,000 ELCA congregations. Nelson said 1,045 churches permit communion only after confirmation; 853 allow it for sixth-grades; 5,399 offer it to fifth-graders; 1,833 offer it to those between kindergarten and the fourth grade; 388 offer it after baptism, but not to infants; and just 60 churches now permit communion for infants. But he went on to say that the number of congregations communing younger children, in the fourth grade and below, is growing."
The full article is available here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v114/ai_19905217).

Protoevangel

11th January 2008, 09:18 PM

Almost a year ago, I was "lead to the exit" shall we say (the boot print on my _____ still hurts, LOL) and I "moved on" (in every sense). I now post elsewhere (WAY TOO MUCH just as I did here). Fortunately, as a Lutheran, I may not serve on staff there which joyously keeps me out of the gunsight and alive...
Well, it will probably a lot nicer for you around here now that I am not around as a Dogmatic Lutheran poster anymore.

In the same spirit of Matthew 2:20, I am VERY cautiously and occasionally poking my nose back here - mostly limiting myself to the quasi friendly world of Lutherans (last September, I officially became Lutheran).

I have no intentions of becoming active here again (I've moved across town) but if all goes well, I may become a guest now and then. I miss the GOOD people over here a LOT.
Well, I'm probably not one of the one you miss then... ;)

Second, I think no one is prepared as one who has the unquestioning faith of a child.
Perhaps....

Thank you!

Pax

- Josiah

.
Thank you.

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 09:21 PM

Interesting!

Thanks!

So, you are of the position that Baptized babies should be given communion (I think that's the Eastern Orthodox position????)? Or are you suggesting at two or thereabouts?

It is the Eastern Orthodox position. They believe that once a baby is baptized it is like it is its given spiritual clothes. They would be remiss if it were not given spirit food, but instead starved. Than I believe after a that, once a child is old old enough to chew and swallow it takes communion.

I would be in agreement with that practice, however, I won't force parents to commune their babies.

IF so, I see your point.... I am curious (if I may) about your understanding of the Scripture about "Let a man EXAMINE himself." Luther advises in his Catechism that "that person is WELL PREPARED who has faith in the words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins." IMHO, that seems to imply, anyway, that one be able to examine himself (for what - I'm not 100% certain) and has faith in forgiveness (which seems to imply some acknowledgement of sin and grace, law and Gospel, ten commandments/gospel of Jesus?). Your thoughts on that?

Well there are two different issues here.

To Luther's point, yes, I think that examining oneself is part of preparing for communion. But perhaps like parents who take responbility for a child's faith in baptism, why not the same at communion?

Now, Paul's point is a totally different matter. In 1 Cor 11 this issue for Paul is that there are members of the Church of Corinth that are excluding their poorer neighbours. For Roman of the day who you ate with was a sign of class and social stature. Romans used to often have what were called guild meals. All the merchants, or citizens, or soldiers would eat at same table together. Slave and peasants were excluded. So members of the Corinthian church would have these huge meals prior to worship and when it came to share the Lord's Supper they would let the peasants and slaves in, except there would be no food left.

Throughout Paul's letter he keeps on pointing back to a radical equality in Christ. And one of the most his significant passages on this theme is in 1 Cor 12. Immediately after his discussion about discerning the body, he spends a great deal of time telling us what the Body of Christ is, the Church or people. Paul didn't have chapters or verses, that was all one continuous point for him.

Therefore, discerning the body of Christ is on one hand about intellectually assenting to the real presence. but on a much bigger other hand, it is about recognizing those who are part of the body of Christ, particularly those who are of lesser stature or lower social power, perhaps children in our day?

Kinda related.... My Dad is a pastor and for years our church did a summer VBS (our church now has so few kids that that's sadly been discontinued; my Dad's church is "graying" badly). Anyway, I was a part of those each year. My parents have this video of what is obviously the evening closing program of some jungle themed VBS. I dont remember it, but I've seen this video about a hundred times - nearly all privately, by myself. There I am. Cute, blonde boy in white shorts and a yellow VBS tshirt. And I'm talking about Jesus to the parents and stuff. This must have been my assignment in some way, I don't know. Every time I watch that kid (somehow known and somehow not by me), I'm blown away. This little boy KNOWS Jesus. He has an amazing, very close, very personal relationship with Jesus. And he knows He is with him and loves him. When I was younger and still at home, when I felt "down" or when "doubts annoy" I would dig out that video - now grainy, and listen to that boy..... I agree with you, we should NEVER under estimate the faith of children. They may not be theologians, they may not be able to articulate things the way we can, but that's not faith, is it?

Thanks for discussing this with me!! I appreciate the discussion and respect!

Pax

- Josiah

.

Similar to your story, during two separate children's sermons I had two responses to the question, "What happens when we go up for communion?" that almost made me weep right then and there. The first was, "Jesus Feeds Mommy, Daddy and me" and the second was "Jesus gives me a big hug". I couldn't have said it better in either case.

You are welcome for the discussion, I appreciate it also!!!

I have to apologize for any typos. My cat gets very jealous of the computer, when I spent time with it and not him, so likes to walk across the keyboard. I think every pastor should have a cat. That way there will one person in your life who will love you unconditionally when things go badly and at the same time remind that you are of no more significance than a can opener when you get too arrogant.

RevCowboy

11th January 2008, 09:27 PM

Second, I think no one is prepared as one who has the unquestioning faith of a child.

"And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." "
- Matthew 18:3

"Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." "
- Matthew 19:14

If "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these", then so do the things of the kingdom, the promises of the kingdom.

When Jesus says "let the little children come", he uses the Greek word for infant, which escapes me at the moment. So even more so than unquestioning faith, Jesus is telling us that we are totally dependent upon God and cannot do anything on our own to receive God's favour, as an infant is totally dependent on its parents for its needs.

Protoevangel

11th January 2008, 09:39 PM

When Jesus says "let the little children come", he uses the Greek word for infant, which escapes me at the moment. So even more so than unquestioning faith, Jesus is telling us that we are totally dependent upon God and cannot do anything on our own to receive God's favour, as an infant is totally dependent on its parents for its needs.
You are absolutely right! It is a "both/and" relationship. What greater unquestioning faith is there but with the infant who's entire existence is in the hands of another? It is exactly that relationship of faith/dependence/guilelesness/humility/simplicity/innocence that is so important to the Christian walk.

Melethiel

11th January 2008, 10:10 PM

Edial

11th January 2008, 11:37 PM

So in your ELCA, no child may recieve communion (is that up to 18 or what?).

Our good brother Stumpjumper posted: "At my ELCA Church, we have open communion but the Pastor does explicitly say that only those who are Baptized Christians and believe in the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior may commune." Which caused me to ask about children, because I'm not SURE this policy would apply to say a 3 year old (but maybe it does).

MY congregation (not ELCA) seems to have a bit of a "mixed" policy here. It seems to be quite restrictive with childen - GENERALLY not inviting those who have not completed First Communion (although I note that some younger kids who have completed it in a Catholic church are welcomed - I think, I of course am not privy to the situation). But for adults (and that may mean older teens), the situation seems not too unlike what Stumpjumper was saying.

But in your ELCA church, no children take communion? Under any circumstances?

Just wondering....

Thank you!!!

May all the Eucharistic Blessings be yours....

- Josiah

By saying "children" I mean the ones that do not understand what they are doing.
We are not a large congregation, so pastors know practically everyone.
When children came to Jesus he blessed them.

When little children are brought to the communion rail pastor blesses them.

When I assist during distribution it is plain to see that little children do not know what they are participating in.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Edial

12th January 2008, 01:43 AM

...
What would be the reason not to be baptized before communion? Part of participating in the Body of Christ is allowing the Body of Christ to recognize you. If an unbaptized person truly wanted communion they would also truly want to be baptized. Taking the Body and Blood of Christ into yourself is acknowledging your part in the Church and submitting to its practices and theology. This is why we don't all do communion at home by ourselves. The Lord's Supper binds us together as One Body and therefore the Body needs to, as a part of its preparation for communing, be allowed to recognize and identify that One Body.
As you mentioned, the church would insist that a new adult believer rather be baptized in front of the church.

Some people feel uncomfortable about doing this. So, it takes some time to educate that person.

Yet, these same people feel "excluded" when they do not participate in communion.

I came from a Baptist background. To them baptism is a huge thing.
And some older new converts (I knew of at least one) do not feel comfortable going through such a public process.

I think when one becomes a believer, it is not wise to put "traditional" obstacles in from of him/her, such as denying the communion unless he is baptized.

Commune him while continually teaching concerning baptism.

At my church I know a guy who was being communed.
Then, he was admitted into the membership of a church and was baptized during this process.
Scripture may not outright say that you need to Baptized for communion, but the fact that all new converts were immediately baptized implies that Baptism is the first thing you do when becoming a Christ. We also have to recognize the practice of the early church, they were following this order of things right from the time Acts.

Yes. This is a pattern.
However, Paul was prioritizing baptism in this way ...

1CO 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I think our insistance that one must be baptized before being communed is an unnecessary stretch that is not found in the Bible.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Edial

12th January 2008, 01:49 AM

I'm all in favor of early communion. Seems rather silly to say that children can have faith, and vigorously defend their right to baptism, but then deny them from the spiritual sustenance of the Sacrament.
But what do we do when they do not recognize the body of Christ in them?
Isn't this one of the Biblical priorities for partaking?

Melethiel

12th January 2008, 01:50 AM

Edial

12th January 2008, 01:56 AM

Sounds strange to me... "All" or "All baptized" may commune... "except you kids, you aren't worthy".

Is this some kind of Baptist-influenced "age of reason" thing going on? ;)
Dan, as an ex-Lutheran you certainly should recall the Scripture that defines participating in the communion as understanding what they are doing.

I understand that in your new environment it might not be that important.
It is OK with me, if you're happy. No problem.

But Lutherans try resolving their questions by Scriptures.

Thanks,
Ed

Protoevangel

12th January 2008, 02:06 AM

Dan, as an ex-Lutheran you certainly should recall the Scripture that defines participating in the communion as understanding what they are doing.

I understand that in your new environment it might not be that important.
It is OK with me, if you're happy. No problem.

But Lutherans try resolving their questions by Scriptures.

Thanks,
Ed
Your words are as sly as ever Ed.

Edial

12th January 2008, 02:15 AM

Your words are as sly as ever Ed.
I don't know about that.

Perhaps I was surprised by your comment concerning this discussion being influenced by a Baptist reasoning.

However, I do apologize.

Ed :)

RevCowboy

12th January 2008, 02:31 AM

As you mentioned, the church would insist that a new adult believer rather be baptized in front of the church.

Some people feel uncomfortable about doing this. So, it takes some time to educate that person.

Yet, these same people feel "excluded" when they do not participate in communion.

I came from a Baptist background. To them baptism is a huge thing.
And some older new converts (I knew of at least one) do not feel comfortable going through such a public process.

I think when one becomes a believer, it is not wise to put "traditional" obstacles in from of him/her, such as denying the communion unless he is baptized.

Commune him while continually teaching concerning baptism.

At my church I know a guy who was being communed.
Then, he was admitted into the membership of a church and was baptized during this process.

Yes. This is a pattern.
However, Paul was prioritizing baptism in this way ...

1CO 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I think our insistance that one must be baptized before being communed is an unnecessary stretch that is not found in the Bible.

Thanks, :)
Ed

I know that someone may feel uncomfortable being Baptized in front of a crowd, but as a clergy type person my dilemma would be to care for the spiritual needs of both the new convert and the rest of body. Would it be fair to deny the rest of the Body of Christ the chance to express their hospitality through the sacrament of Baptism. Is if fair to let the congregation commune with someone that they have not yet made the vow to support and uphold in faith?

As much as Paul is compelled to preach the Gospel, part of hearing that Gospel is submission to Christ and to each other. Christ commanded us to Baptize all nations. I would say that the self consciousness regarding not wanting to be Baptized in public is the Old Adam's last ditch attempt to keep it from happening, or at least delaying as long as possible.

If someone were truly self-conscious about it, I think I might let it slide one Sunday, and I would commune them. But all the issues of communion aside, if someone that was unbaptized was attending and desired strongly enough to participate in the life of the congregation that they wanted to commune, then I try everything to have them Baptized by the next Sunday, because for Lutherans Baptism is the grace in which we are continually washed and made anew by the Holy Spirit. It is the beginning point of faith! Baptism as far as I am concerned is where its at!

Protoevangel

12th January 2008, 02:45 AM

I don't know about that.

Perhaps I was surprised by your comment concerning this discussion being influenced by a Baptist reasoning.

However, I do apologize.

Ed :)
You are forgiven.

Please forgive my comment as well. I meant it tongue-in cheek, but it was not a good way for me to enter the conversation.

Edial

12th January 2008, 01:23 PM

You are forgiven.

Please forgive my comment as well. I meant it tongue-in cheek, but it was not a good way for me to enter the conversation.
No problem. :) Consider it erased. :)

CaliforniaJosiah

12th January 2008, 07:59 PM

I disagree. Baptism is a Sacrament, and the normative means of entry into the public life of the Church. Since the Sacrament is not only an individual but also a communal action, one should be baptized before partaking. Tradition is very often there for a good reason.

While I don't have a Scripture and thus don't believe I may be dogmatic at this point, I think the Eucharist is for Christians and thus being Baptized should be normative be the case for those recieving the Holy Sacrament....

CaliforniaJosiah

12th January 2008, 08:03 PM

I know that someone may feel uncomfortable being Baptized in front of a crowd, but as a clergy type person my dilemma would be to care for the spiritual needs of both the new convert and the rest of body. Would it be fair to deny the rest of the Body of Christ the chance to express their hospitality through the sacrament of Baptism. Is if fair to let the congregation commune with someone that they have not yet made the vow to support and uphold in faith?

As much as Paul is compelled to preach the Gospel, part of hearing that Gospel is submission to Christ and to each other. Christ commanded us to Baptize all nations. I would say that the self consciousness regarding not wanting to be Baptized in public is the Old Adam's last ditch attempt to keep it from happening, or at least delaying as long as possible.

If someone were truly self-conscious about it, I think I might let it slide one Sunday, and I would commune them. But all the issues of communion aside, if someone that was unbaptized was attending and desired strongly enough to participate in the life of the congregation that they wanted to commune, then I try everything to have them Baptized by the next Sunday, because for Lutherans Baptism is the grace in which we are continually washed and made anew by the Holy Spirit. It is the beginning point of faith! Baptism as far as I am concerned is where its at!

I was baptized when I was about 4 minutes old, in the operating room, by my father (a minister).

I was delivered very early, by "c-section" because I had a heart defect (no jokes, please) and needed immediately surgery, with risk factors being very high. My Dad baptized me in that time after my delivery and before my surgery. So I missed out on the embrace of the community of saints....

Nonetheless, while the saints were not there physically, I believe they were there - earthly and sainted - celebrating. And I think the heavens opened and the voice of God said, "this is My son...."

A blessed Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord to you all....

Pax

- Josiah

.

RevCowboy

12th January 2008, 09:51 PM

I was baptized when I was about 4 minutes old, in the operating room, by my father (a minister).

I was delivered very early, by "c-section" because I had a heart defect (no jokes, please) and needed immediately surgery, with risk factors being very high. My Dad baptized me in that time after my delivery and before my surgery. So I missed out on the embrace of the community of saints....

Nonetheless, while the saints were not there physically, I believe they were there - earthly and sainted - celebrating. And I think the heavens opened and the voice of God said, "this is My son...."

A blessed Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord to you all....

Pax

- Josiah

.

Baptisms in emergency situations can be done outside of Sunday morning. Plus there were probably doctors and nurses and a whole hospital around. The Body of Christ was there in some manner.

CaliforniaJosiah

12th January 2008, 09:55 PM

The Body of Christ was there in some manner.

I believe so, too....

.

Cjwinnit

23rd January 2008, 03:51 PM

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

I'm not sure but I think the "becoming one flesh" thing plays a part.

RevCowboy

24th January 2008, 07:05 PM

I'm not sure but I think the "becoming one flesh" thing plays a part.

I am not sure I get you...

Quintessence

25th February 2008, 11:33 PM

In my opinion...I don't see Jesus turning away anyone who would come to His table.:)

tisamy

21st April 2008, 09:02 PM

All professing Christians.

Perhaps I am mistaken but it is my understanding from reading the gospels that even Judas was present at the institution of the Eucharist and partook. Just a thought.

RegularGuy

21st April 2008, 09:45 PM

All professing Christians.

Perhaps I am mistaken but it is my understanding from reading the gospels that even Judas was present at the institution of the Eucharist and partook. Just a thought.
The point is contested, sometimes bitterly. I think that in the Gospel of Luke it is quite clear. Judas's hand was still on the table when Jesus gave the bread and wine.

AngelusSax

21st April 2008, 10:39 PM

The point is contested, sometimes bitterly. I think that in the Gospel of Luke it is quite clear. Judas's hand was still on the table when Jesus gave the bread and wine.

I don't see how one can contest it without ignoring Luke, but then again I don't see everything.

If Jesus offered himself through the initial institution of the Sacrament, even unto what would be, to put a very fine point on it, the ultra-personal betrayer of God Himself (since that is what Jesus was and is, and while we all betray God in our sins, and theologically we all put Him on the Cross, we didn't all physically go "rat him out" to the Roman soldiers), why doesn't he offer himself the same way to those desire to not betray Him, but just can't for some reason believe in the Real Presence, truly and fully?

I picked up a Lutheran Book of Prayer this weekend, and it contains some instructional things as well as prayer, and it does say that one who does not believe in the Real Presence also receives Christ to their "great damnation".

My question is this: If one is saved by simply believing Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and for good measure they are baptized (whether as infant or adult), how can they receieve Jesus to their great damnation? Isn't that a contradiction? You're saved and yet you're damned because even though you believe Jesus died for you, you don't believe that this really is His body and blood you're consuming?

Eh, my head hurts...

Edial

22nd April 2008, 10:32 AM

I don't see how one can contest it without ignoring Luke, but then again I don't see everything.

If Jesus offered himself through the initial institution of the Sacrament, even unto what would be, to put a very fine point on it, the ultra-personal betrayer of God Himself (since that is what Jesus was and is, and while we all betray God in our sins, and theologically we all put Him on the Cross, we didn't all physically go "rat him out" to the Roman soldiers), why doesn't he offer himself the same way to those desire to not betray Him, but just can't for some reason believe in the Real Presence, truly and fully?

I picked up a Lutheran Book of Prayer this weekend, and it contains some instructional things as well as prayer, and it does say that one who does not believe in the Real Presence also receives Christ to their "great damnation".

My question is this: If one is saved by simply believing Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and for good measure they are baptized (whether as infant or adult), how can they receieve Jesus to their great damnation? Isn't that a contradiction? You're saved and yet you're damned because even though you believe Jesus died for you, you don't believe that this really is His body and blood you're consuming?

Eh, my head hurts...
I also do not believe if one sincerely partakes while having a hard time believing that it is a real sacrament, one will sin.
It is simply not in the text.

What is in the text is when one who KNOWS that it is real yet behaves like it is not and sees it as just food to be gulped down and does not let other to partake of the sacrament ... just because he wants to simply eat it up - he is in deep trouble.

I, as a non-believer partook at a Catholic service simply because I thought it would be proper, since I respected Christ.

I did not die nor got sick.
Instead God saved me about a year later.

I believe there should be an announcement concerning what the elements are.
And whoever comes, comes.

Each person knows his own motives why he comes.

Even in 1Corinthians 11 Paul did not say - don't partake.

He said to examine himself and to judge himself, or God will do that for him.

Thanks,
Ed

Till

22nd April 2008, 04:58 PM

Deleted the post as it was not wise or necessary.

Sorry Edial.

Edial

23rd April 2008, 08:02 AM

Deleted the post as it was not wise or necessary.

Sorry Edial.
No problem. :) I didn't even see it.

doulos_tou_kuriou

23rd April 2008, 01:47 PM

To throw in my whole two pennies for whatever they are worth now...
Paul warns agaisnt those who eat of the body of Christ in an "unworthy manner" is guilty of sinning and whoever eats and drinks without "recognizing" the body and blood eats to his/her own damnation.
-The context is rather about Paul scolding the Corinthians for excluding people, that is, taking communion before some people arrives, the real sin he is charging them with is one of not letting people eat/drink, rather than allowing the wrong people to (although one could argue that as well with his prohibition in regards to eating with the sinning brother in chapter 5).
-Another thing to note is that Lutherans believe that no matter what you are eating and drinking Christ's body and blood, believer or not, it is there, this is distinctly different from some whom we are in communion with like the reformed communities who believe only believers partake in communion by the Spirit taking them into a "sweet communion in heaven". The issue in Lutheranism is never did someone eat and drink the body and blood, but what is the efficacy. If you eat and drink to your own damnation, I do not take this to believe that God has revoked a believer's forgiveness because they did not recognize it to be the body and blood truly present, after all nothing seperates us from the love of God. But rather it would seem this is a way in which Paul is making clear that you do not receive the merits of communion ex opere operato.
-The catechism states that he who believes in the words "given and shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins" is truly ready to come to communion. Notice here how the emphasis is not on the mode/means of presence but on the grace of the sacrament. And it rests truly on trust in God's action in the sacrament. It mirrors quite frankly the Lutheran ideal of faith. A trust grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and all the grace God bestows on his account through faith. What this means, is the issue of who comes to the sacrament works round about to whoever has faith. And we should also note that faith from the Lutheran view is more bent on trust than on intellect. This means that we cannot assume it be complete knowledge of the sacrament to make one worthy of partaking.
-It is also of note that when we admit or deny someone from the table, we are making at least an outward assumption about his/her faith. Now we can go on about how we do not know each others' faiths for sure, which is why Paul puts the ultimate responsibility on the person coming to communion.
-As to the point of not recognizing the body and blood of Christ, the context of the issue makes the point clear, it is not an intellectual understanding of means of presence, otherwise we might all be screwed, who here afterall is bold enough to say they fully understand the means in which Christ is present in our sacrament. While Luther was confident in the presence and its relation to the Word, even he did not assume he could grasp the mystery we partake in. Therefore, let us not think that the perfect understanding of presence or a "close to perfect" is required for one to be worthy, but rather the context of the letter makes it clear that this means recognizing it is not simply bread and wine at a meal that we eat and drink of freely. The context demands that Paul wants to make it clear that the sacrament is a Holy thing and not an ordinary meal, therefore we are not the hosts and do not decide who eats and who drinks. Paul tells them that they should eat before coming and not use the sacrament as a means of filling their tummies.
-In short (which might have been the only thing you wanted from me, apologies) it seems that the words of Paul reflect maintaining the holiness of the sacrament, as a sacrament for all believers, and highlighting the emphasis of faith within it.
I'm all talked out, and you are probably all read out a while ago. But that's my two pennies. Save up!
Peace be with you.