Timeline for Why should communion be "closed"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17 at 19:53 | comment | added | Matthew | @gidds, yes, I think that's fair, and to answer the second question... when humans are no longer sinful and no longer follow false teachers and false gods. See also Matthew 18:17. Yes, it would be better to have no divisions, but if divisions cannot be reconciled, pretending they don't exist is the wrong answer. | |
| Jun 17 at 19:14 | comment | added | gidds | @Matthew So disagreements on the openness of communion are mostly just a symptom of the more fundamental disagreements on what it means to be a Christian, and the status of the church in question? Emo Phillips had it right… I find this desperately sad. When will we put aside this petty squabbling, and learn that what unites us is far more important than what divides us? | |
| Jun 17 at 17:39 | comment | added | Matthew | @gidds, Roman Catholics, for example, believe that most non-Roman-Catholics are not true Christians. Protestants believe that many Roman Catholics are probably not true Christians. Frankly, different sects have different views on what is necessary to actually accept Jesus as one's Lord and Savior. Note also Matthew 7:21. | |
| Jun 17 at 17:31 | comment | added | Matthew | @gidds, that's a reasonable question... and the reality is that it varies from church to church. However, I think 1 Corinthians 11:29 gives a reasonable minimum, which suggests that transubstantiationists and consubstantiationists probably shouldn't mingle, and that neither should commune with Calvinists. More generally, however, I think the criteria is whether "serious doctrinal differences" exist. | |
| Jun 17 at 8:51 | comment | added | gidds | How do you define ‘unity in faith’ in this context? And why draw the line there? At one extreme, as discussed above, it would clearly be inappropriate to take communion with someone of a completely different faith. But on the other, it would be equally foolish to deny it to someone who agreed on every point of faith but one tiny detail. So, given how far the potential good outweighs the potential harm (as the question says), why do those churches draw that line so tightly? Why not require (as some churches do) merely that people accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour? | |
| Jun 16, 2021 at 23:05 | comment | added | Matthew | I disagree that not desiring to express unity of faith with heterodox (using that in the non-disparaging sense of "Christians that don't agree with each other") constitutes an emotional argument. And my point is that if you can't see that as an "acceptable" argument, then this discussion is not going to be productive. | |
| Jun 16, 2021 at 18:23 | comment | added | David Eisenbeisz | No coercion on my part at all. I am merely asking that we reflect upon the reasons why we choose to do what we do. I cannot change these practices either way. I am simply looking for a cohesive argument for closed communion that 1. is consistent with other undisputed Christian doctrine, and 2. is formed in accordance with the rules of critical thinking. So far, the arguments have leaned toward appeals to emotion (I don't want to commune with heretics) and appeals to tradition (this is simply how we do it). It doesn't make the arguments completely invalid, just insufficient to convince me. | |
| Jun 10, 2021 at 0:30 | comment | added | Matthew | @DavidEisenbeisz, if you are determined to not accept that such differences matter to some Christians, I don't know what else I can say. I'll leave you with this parting thought, though: by insisting that they should not matter, you are attempting to coerce others into accepting your beliefs. | |
| Jun 10, 2021 at 0:20 | comment | added | David Eisenbeisz | Matthew, I don't think whether I would sit down and pray to Vishnu is relevant to whether I want a Hindu to accept Jesus. Of course I want EVERYONE to embrace our Lord, no matter how misguided they might currently be. I don't own Jesus. I think your analogy is a bit extreme. I'm not asking if we should share our gifts with idol worshippers, I am asking why, among Christians, minor disagreements regarding our faith are so important that a Lutheran would not commune with a Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian? (Or vice-versa.) | |
| May 29, 2021 at 17:06 | comment | added | Matthew | Look at this another way: would you, as a Christian, sit down next to a Hindu and pray with them to Vishnu or Shiva or whatever entity? How would you do so without seeming to suggest that you approve of their beliefs somehow? Communion is much the same; it is (in the view of those that practice CC, at least) a joint activity which suggests unity in faith. If such unity does not exist, it is disrespectful and dishonest on everyone's part to pretend otherwise. | |
| May 29, 2021 at 16:59 | comment | added | Matthew | @DavidEisenbeisz, if I knew someone with different beliefs was at the rail, I wouldn't commune. That's very much the same as where I previously stated why I would choose not to commune at a church that does not share my beliefs. That's sort of the whole point of closed communion. Also, I would find such an act dishonest and disrespectful. Now, if you disagree that the Sacrament is an expression of unity in faith, then obviously you're going to disagree w.r.t. closed communion. OTOH, I don't see how you can reject closed communion if you do see it as an expression of unity in faith. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 21:28 | comment | added | David Eisenbeisz | If you were kneeling next to a pagan at the communion Table, how would you know? And more importantly, how would it affect your worship in any way whatsoever? It just seems like too much worry about what other people think rather than concentrating upon one's own repentance, sacrifice, and redemption, which is what communion should be about. IMO, people should worry less about what others think (about things that cannot be fully understood in the first place) and worry more about bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. | |
| May 28, 2021 at 21:20 | comment | added | David Eisenbeisz | Matthew, I just don't see the harm in communing with someone with whom you have doctrinal disagreements. I don't like the idea of subjecting people to an arbitration before they can ask Jesus' blood and body to enter into them. As for the slippery slope argument, it cuts both ways. My gut feeling is that giving a third party the power over who can share the blood and body is probably not what Jesus intended. Besides, the more people who are invited to the Table the more people who will be saved, and isn't that what's really most important? | |
| May 23, 2021 at 14:17 | comment | added | Matthew | @DavidEisenbeisz, in response to your prior question, I'm not sure what you mean by "in the liturgy", but "better" churches will include a statement on why they practice closed communion, at least in the bulletin. In mine, the presiding minister even reads this statement aloud at the beginning of the Service of the Sacrament ("...we believe that when a person communes at an altar, one confesses unity with the teachings of that church. Therefore, if you are not in fellowship..."). So, maybe your answer is that better churches do, and perhaps all of them should. | |
| May 19, 2021 at 17:24 | comment | added | Matthew | @DavidEisenbeisz, if it's okay for a Catholic to commune with a Baptist, why not with a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Wiccan? "Open communion" is the start of a slippery slope toward syncretism and muddying the very meaning of Christianity. But I still think you're missing the point: why, if you so greatly desire communion, would you not simply commune at a church with which you are in doctrinal agreement? | |
| May 19, 2021 at 17:03 | comment | added | David Eisenbeisz | I guess it comes down to a really important question: Would I want to stand before God and explain (through logic and parsing of biblical minutia) why I chose to not share in the glorious remembrance of Jesus' death and resurrection but instead chose to express Unity in Faith with my own people? No thank you. I am not a pastor, but I have a few in my family, and I would not want to be wrong about justifying the exclusion of anyone from what essentially is the closest many of us will ever get to presence of God. Just my opinion, but I am not entirely committed to it. | |
| May 19, 2021 at 16:52 | comment | added | David Eisenbeisz | Then that begs the question: If communion is an expression of unity in faith, why do churches not state that in the liturgy? Why is this purpose not important enough to declare during the act? I think there is much to be gained in instructing people who might not understand the issues of sacrifice, contrition, and humility that surround communion; but where is the humility in attaching "unity in faith" to communion when the disposition of the Eucharist after the blessing is such a miraculous mystery in the first place? | |
| May 19, 2021 at 1:27 | comment | added | Matthew | @BalooRM, that's true (changed to "confessional Lutherans"), although ELCA practices a lot of things that were not practiced by historical Lutherans and are contrary to the Lutheran confessions. (Not sure how much they have in common with non-American Lutherans/Evangelicals any more, either.) | |
| May 19, 2021 at 1:22 | history | edited | Matthew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2021 at 1:03 | comment | added | BalooRM | It may be helpful not to over-generalize and to make note above that the closed communion polities of LCMS and WELS do not reflect a majority of Lutherans in America. The majority Lutheran denomination (ELCA) practices open communion and has entered into full communion partnerships with denominations including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, The Moravian Church, and The United Methodist Church. | |
| May 18, 2021 at 2:35 | history | edited | Matthew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 437 characters in body
|
| May 18, 2021 at 2:28 | history | answered | Matthew | CC BY-SA 4.0 |