Closed Communion

[SPALATIN]

In a thread titled "Is it inevitable" the conversation has been directed to the LCMS by some in another synod.

I think you are right to have hesitations about the LCMS and WELS. The whole issue of close communion sends a very clear message regarding what they are about.


I would never consider my brothers and sisters in the WELS/LCMS to be outside the Church... but I think the message they're sending is not what they intend to communicate.

Since the post I had put on your subforum was deleted I feel that the only way that we can defend ourselves is here. I find the quotes by ctobola to be incorrect assumptions on his part. He clearly doesn't like to be omitted from communion because of differences of opinion.

No one has ever proven us to be wrong in our approach to closed communion. In fact, many LCMS churches don't even practice it. They instead practice Close communion. Most of the congregations have a note in the Service bulletin that advise those who might be visiting that they must believe in the Real Presence of Christ if they want to take communion with the regular communicants.

Is Closed communion wrong? no, in fact it is more right than it is wrong. I am tired of the more liberal synods telling us that we are wrong when they can't prove it to be wrong.

So I am interested in hearing from others on this subject.

 

[KEPLER]

I was recently told that a post of mine had been deleted on the ELCA forum in the thread titled "Is it inevitable?" ctobola stated that the LCMS and WELS are arrogant because we still have Closed communion and that we are saying we are right and they are wrong.

I commented that this couldn't be further from the truth. True, communion is often refused to those who are living in sin as a measure to bring them to repentance. However, the LCMS also says that Communion is for those who are in agreement with scripture. If the ELCA and LCMS don't have agreement on what scriptures say then there should not be communion between them. It is not a we are better than they thing. I really feel that we have been wronged here by his statement and if I can't post there then I will post it here. If this is deemed inappropriate than I will have to resign from this forum.

Interesting...I didn't think your response was any stronger than Dan's was (and I thought both were excellent!), but his stays ONLY because he's ELCA? Well that says something, now doesn't it?

As I recall, I don't think there was anything inappropriate...do you have the EXACT text you used?

P.S....my congregation practices "close" communion, which I am far more comforatble with, personally.

 

[SPALATIN]

Interesting...I didn't think your response was any stronger than Dan's was (and I thought both were excellent!), but his stays ONLY because he's ELCA? Well that says something, now doesn't it?

As I recall, I don't think there was anything inappropriate...do you have the EXACT text you used?

P.S....my congregation practices "close" communion, which I am far more comforatble with, personally.

I only think that it was because I used the "ELCA" reference in it.

 

[Music4Hym777]

MOD HAT ON

Discussing Moderator actions is against rule 7.1, there shall be no more discussion of it in public forums, if you have questions, you can PM any of the moderators to get the reason why

/MOD HAT OFF

 

[SPALATIN]

Message read, message recvd.

 

[KEPLER]

EDIT: Scott, et al., the following sounds argumentative. I didn't mean for it to sound that way, but rather than trying to rewrite it, let me just say that this is meant to be more of positional statement than a polemical statement. Positional in the sense of, "Here, this is how I read the confessions, now...Discuss!"

P.S....my congregation practices "close" communion, which I am far more comforatble with, personally.

That probably deserves a little more unpacking, eh? It sounds a little too subjective.

First of all, I'll make sure I have the defintions correct:

By "Closed" communion, it is meant that no one outside the LCMS may commune, under any circumstances.
By "Close" communion, it is meant that upon confession of agreement with the Real Presence of Christ's true Body and Blood in, with, and under the elements a person may commune.

Is this correct?

Picking a synod proved to be one of the hardest decisions I ever had to make. I found many ELCA congregations which served the Lord's Supper every Sunday (which is Biblical and historical); many LCMS congregations serve it once a month (due to influence from the Baptistic churches). (Mine serves it every Sunday, but at a different service: I call this game "Chase the Wafer".) I am fearful and distrustful of the lack of respect for Scripture in the ELCA (as are many of its own agrieved members!); I am repulsed by the Baptistic and fundamentalist tendencies of Missouri. Regarding the latter statement, here is a case in point: in the current edition of the Lutheran Witness, the following letter appeared --

The author of “Anguish and Assurance on Campus” (August ’05) carefully avoided the main issue of why our young people choose to abandon their faith during those formative college years.

It should be no secret to anyone that Christ and His teachings are no longer welcome on public-universi*ty campuses across America. While the campus should be a forum for all public debate, a place where tolerance is supposedly the name of the game, the tolerance for Christianity is indeed missing. We should not be surprised that, while living in this spiritually hostile envi*ronment, our children turn away from their faith. The bedrock of our Christian faith, creation, as found in the opening verses of Genesis, is routinely dismissed as a fairy tale by most professors. Evolution is the gospel of the university campus in America. If there is no Creator God, then there is no basis for, or need to accept, the Scriptures that follow.

Your children likely were baptized, confirmed, and taught Christian prin*ciples at home, but when they enter a public university, they are subjected to wholesale attacks on their faith. Little wonder that young adults who are spiritually sensitive often become confused in this godless arena and sometimes reject their faith.

Bedrock of the Christian faith??!! What ever happened to "Justification is the article by which the Church stands or Falls!" or, more simply, The Gospel??!! (Mind you, I am not criticizing anyone who holds to Young-Earth Creationsim! But anyone who thinks that it is the bedrock of our faith is a fundamentalist Baptist, not a Lutheran!) A Lutheran may certainly believe it, and may even believe that it is very important...but a Lutheran is NOT ALLOWED to believe that it is the bedrock of our faith.

The Gospel is the "material" principle of our faith; scripture is the "formal" principle. Young Earth Creationsim is not a "principle" of any kind, it is a position.

Now our Synod will allow the author of this letter who holds a heterodox theological position to come to the Lord's Table (because he belongs in the LCMS, but pace the fact the he holds an aberrant theological view), but would disallow Dan from the Lord's Supper (pace the fact the he is a throughly Confessional Lutheran (as far as I can tell), but because he belongs to the ELCA). That is ludicrous. I think it is self-evident that the author of the letter should be disciplined and Dan should be communed.

Mind you, I'm not saying EVERYONE should be allowed, but those who can clearly enunciate Lutheran Confessional doctrine (like Dan) and have not shown gross misunderstanding of the Gospel (like the letter's author) or contempt of the law should be.

If another synod's (or denomination's) views on Scripture are so aberrant as to refuse them communion (in which they, like Dan, presumably agree), why does not that distinction cover baptism as well?

It seems to me that pushing too hard the other way takes the Lord's Supper out of Christ's hands. Just like Baptism, the Lord's Supper is God's act, not ours. Should we withhold Baptism from an infant because he might not grow up into a good Christian? Or, better yet, would the LCMS rebaptize a person baptized as an infant in the ELCA? Of course not! No, we trust in the promises of the Gospel.

The Formula is generally the place to which Lutherans turn for matters touching on the Lord's Supper. Lots of people can subscribe the CA, and yet when it comes to the Formula's description of the Lord's Supper, there they balk (including my CF namesake, Kepler, who never signed the Formula).

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24] Hence it is easy to reply to all manner of questions about which at the present time men are disturbed, as, for instance, whether a wicked priest can administer and distribute the Sacrament, and such like other points. For here conclude and reply: Even though a knave take or distribute the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ, just as truly as he who receives or administers it in the most worthy manner. For it is not founded upon the holiness of men, but upon the Word of God. And as no saint upon earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, so also can no one change or alter it, even though it be abused. [/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25] For the Word, by which it became a sacrament and was instituted, does not become false because of the person or his unbelief. For He does not say: If you believe or are worthy, you will receive My body and blood, but: "Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood"; 26] likewise: "Do this" (namely, what I now do, institute, give, and bid you take). That is as much as to say, No matter whether you be worthy or unworthy, you have here His body and blood, by virtue of these words which are added to the bread and wine. This mark and observe well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all error and temptation that have ever come or may yet come.​

[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IN MY OPINION, putting a heavy empahsis on the "closed" part of communion risks taking it out of the realm of the Holy Spirit and into the realm of men, which the Formula explicitly warns us against here. While we should take care to declare what it is we are confessing in the Lord's Supper (i.e., the Real presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ), we should also take care that it is in coming together that the confession is made! It is by coming to the table that people make their confession. And more specifically, that's where they make their confession about the Supper. And not about anything else.
[/font]
​

 

[LutherNut]

If I may just throw a couple of pennies into this...

By "Closed" communion, it is meant that no one outside the LCMS may commune, under any circumstances.

Not exactly. It would also include those who are in full altar/pulpit fellowship with the LCMS, such as the LCC and some other Lutheran bodies around the world.

Bedrock of the Christian faith??!! What ever happened to "Justification is the article by which the Church stands or Falls!" or, more simply, The Gospel??!! (Mind you, I am not criticizing anyone who holds to Young-Earth Creationsim! But anyone who thinks that it is the bedrock of our faith is a fundamentalist Baptist, not a Lutheran!) A Lutheran may certainly believe it, and may even believe that it is very important...but a Lutheran is NOT ALLOWED to believe that it is the bedrock of our faith.

Perhaps not the best choice of words, but within the Creation and Fall accounts in Genesis is not only original sin (the base of our need for a Savior) but also the first prophetic promise of the Savior. If Creation and the Fall are dismissed, then Christianity is also dismissed since there would be no Fall of humanity into sin and, subsequently, no need for a Savior or grace.

Now our Synod will allow the author of this letter who holds a heterodox theological position to come to the Lord's Table (because he belongs in the LCMS, but pace the fact the he holds an aberrant theological view), but would disallow Dan from the Lord's Supper (pace the fact the he is a throughly Confessional Lutheran (as far as I can tell), but because he belongs to the ELCA). That is ludicrous. I think it is self-evident that the author of the letter should be disciplined and Dan should be communed.

It is not necessarily a heterodox position (see above). Besides, if Dan is truly an orthodox, confessional Lutheran, then why does he subscribe to the heterodoxy of the ELCA by remaining within its membership and communing at its altar?

If another synod's (or denomination's) views on Scripture are so aberrant as to refuse them communion (in which they, like Dan, presumably agree), why does not that distinction cover baptism as well?

Because there is no Scripture that says that those who are baptized "in an unworthy manner" are guilty of committing a sin. No such condition exists for Baptism as does for the Lord's Supper.

It seems to me that pushing too hard the other way takes the Lord's Supper out of Christ's hands. Just like Baptism, the Lord's Supper is God's act, not ours.

That's right. And God, in His word, has given the Church the conditions by which one can receive worthily and receive the benefits of God's work. The Office of the Keys is charged with the binding and loosing on earth, the admittance and the denial, based upon the Word of God alone. When the Word places such conditions upon the reception of the Lord's Supper and the church refuses to abide by God's conditions, the church not only endangers the Spiritual welfare of those who receive unworthily to their judgement, but it also goes directly against the very will of God as revealed in His word.


Just my two hundreth's of a buck's worth...


Jay

 

[filosofer]

Having been around the LCMS for more than half a century, in some very, very conservative circles, I have never seen absolute "closed communion" strictly practiced, even by the most adamant advocates. But I have seen it improperly handled.

This brings back a discussion I tried to initiate about "fellowship" and communion. What is the Confessional requirement for communion fellowship? And today it is "denominational specificity" not confessional adherence.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[SPALATIN]

Having been around the LCMS for more than half a century, in some very, very conservative circles, I have never seen absolute "closed communion" strictly practiced, even by the most adamant advocates. But I have seen it improperly handled.

This brings back a discussion I tried to initiate about "fellowship" and communion. What is the Confessional requirement for communion fellowship? And today it is "denominational specificity" not confessional adherence.

In Christ's love,
filo

filo,

Could it be that confessional adherence behooves us to be denominationally specific? What with the errors that each denomination outside of us teaches it would prove that they are not confessional.

I know that the Preus brothers respect each other's synod directives. Klemet does not take communion when visiting Rolf and Rolf does not take it when visiting Klemet. I am sure the same goes for Daniel. When I visited a ELS church this past summer I sat while the others partook of the sacrament. I did it out of respect, not because I felt they were better than me. The more liberal synod members here have taken offense at this rather than just sit back and know that they heard God's word and they confessed their sins with the rest of them and were forgiven.

Not communing with ELCA is the LCMS directive due to disagreements with Women's ordination, the open communion agreements with the PCUSA and ECUSA and a number of other smaller issues. But the WELS and the ELS do not offer communion to those in the LCMS for a number of reasons, one which states that the LCMS has become a heterodox church body.

You have gone to the TAALC(?) and though we are now sharing a seminary and to some extent have an open communion agreement with your synod, I am sure that there are some disagreements between the LCMS and your synod that over time could either grow wider or disappear.

As I said, closed communion is practiced among some of the more conservative congregations in the LCMS, but for the most part I see "Close" communion being the norm.

 

[Protoevangel]

Besides, if Dan is truly an orthodox, confessional Lutheran, then why does he subscribe to the heterodoxy of the ELCA by remaining within its membership and communing at its altar?

Those are fair questions, Jay. I ask these of myself quite often. Here is my answer.

Why do I stay? There has been hope that we would be able to salvage many from the ELCA by being a light. I have committed my support to one more battle before I leave, shake off my sandals, and leave them to devour one another.

Why do I commune?

1] Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, etc. Matt. 23, 2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.

3] They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.

Even though their intent be evil, the Word of God is preached, in the Liturgy itself, if nowhere else. Watered down, yes, but preached nonetheless. God's word will not... can not return void. It is the Word of God that makes Christ present, not the man nor the denomination. My confession is clear, and my conscience is untainted, for it is captive to Christ alone, and not to the evil men who seek, but fail, to tarnish the Word of God.

 

[KEPLER]

Edit: entire post omitted, I think I may have answered my own question...I need to think about this some more.

 

[filosofer]

filo,

Could it be that confessional adherence behooves us to be denominationally specific? What with the errors that each denomination outside of us teaches it would prove that they are not confessional.

But that is exactly the issue - the ELCA has publicly demonstrated in the joint fellowship with Reformed and Episcoplian churches that it is no longer Lutheran (even by its own historical documents - at least one half of its history, "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran pastors only, Lutheran altars for Lutherans only").

You have gone to the TAALC(?) and though we are now sharing a seminary and to some extent have an open communion agreement with your synod, I am sure that there are some disagreements between the LCMS and your synod that over time could either grow wider or disappear.

What is interesting about this "gone over to TAALC" (although this is not in the category of Rose or Dr. Hogg swimming the river), is that my public confession of the faith has not changed one iota from the ordination vows I took in the LCMS many years ago. Interesting that the ordination vows are NOT denominational specific, but Confessional specific. Doesn't that say something about this topic?

I think the discussions between LCMS and TAALC (three topics have been covered, four are on tap for March) are demonstrating that Confessional identity is not denominational specific, rather Confessional specific. The TAALC has no interest in "joining or merging" with the LCMS, nor does LCMS want us to merge. There is a legimate Confessional purpose for the two church bodies (otherwise, why not the insistence that WELS and ELS merge?).

As I said, closed communion is practiced among some of the more conservative congregations in the LCMS, but for the most part I see "Close" communion being the norm.

Again, I have traveled all over the US, we have moved 27 times, and I have yet to run into any pastor/congregation in the LCMS who strictly practices closed communion. What I have seen develop is "selective communing" within the LCMS. And that is NOT denominational identity in any sense, and certainly NOT Confessional identity, despite public shills that it is.
In Christ's love,
filo

 

[Qoheleth]

Again, I have traveled all over the US, we have moved 27 times, and I have yet to run into any pastor/congregation in the LCMS who strictly practices closed communion.

Ahhh, you have not been to my parish (Zion Detroit, Mi) then, have you.

Q

 

[Marguerite]

Ahhh, you have not been to my parish (Zion Detroit, Mi) then, have you.

Q

Our LCMS church (also in Michigan) practices close communion also.

 

[SPALATIN]

Has anyone read that song lyric on the ELCA subforum? This is why it is necessary for anyone visiting to speak with the Pastor before the service if communion is offered. It's about the Confession involved. If you are examined by the Pastor prior to the service you should be allowed communion.

When I first came back to the LCMS after being in an ELCA church I was denied the right to commune there until I had gone through the membership class. It made me want to get through the class as quickly as possible to be able to partake again. It didn't turn me away, but asked to wait until they could be assured that I was on the same confessional page as they were.

 

[KEPLER]

Has anyone read that song lyric on the ELCA subforum? This is why it is necessary for anyone visiting to speak with the Pastor before the service if communion is offered. It's about the Confession involved. If you are examined by the Pastor prior to the service you should be allowed communion.

When I first came back to the LCMS after being in an ELCA church I was denied the right to commune there until I had gone through the membership class. It made me want to get through the class as quickly as possible to be able to partake again. It didn't turn me away, but asked to wait until they could be assured that I was on the same confessional page as they were.

Surely that's not something they sing in a sanctuary??!! However, I also can't imagine it hitting the charts of CCM either, so where on earth would anyone sing that song?? At ELCA church camp, perhaps? It almost makes "Kum-Ba-Yah" look liturgical.

On the other hand, Scott, are you talking the 10 week membership class, or the one-day "make sure we're on the same page" abbreviated version?

 

[Protoevangel]

Gee, I wonder how long my post will last over there? That's ok, I'm overdue for my next "warning", anyway.

 

[SPALATIN]

Surely that's not something they sing in a sanctuary??!! However, I also can't imagine it hitting the charts of CCM either, so where on earth would anyone sing that song?? At ELCA church camp, perhaps? It almost makes "Kum-Ba-Yah" look liturgical.

On the other hand, Scott, are you talking the 10 week membership class, or the one-day "make sure we're on the same page" abbreviated version?

The 10-Week program. Going through the small catechism. Actually it was more for my wife than for me. I didn't need to really go through it or abstain from communion, but because my wife was not from a Lutheran background she had to be catechized. So I stayed back with her until the course was finished. She sd she objected to some of the things they said and in the end would not go forth and be confirmed. Funny thing is that the church still made her a member.

 

[KEPLER]

Gee, I wonder how long my post will last over there? That's ok, I'm overdue for my next "warning", anyway.

Dan, you agitator!

 

[SPALATIN]

Dan, you agitator!

Yeah, that Danhead is a real troublemaker. You just can't take him anywhere.

Dan, I give her about 5 minutes of reading the posts in that thread before she does anything.