Liturgical Only Sacred space & closed communion.

[Tigger]

It probably seems obvious to some but a while back I realized that the churches that practice sacred space first teach the real presence of Christ in the elements and second closed communion.

Starting with whom I think practice the highest level of sacred space in order are;
1st Orthodox
2nd Catholic
3rd confessional Lutheran
4th non-confessional Lutheran & Anglican/Episcopal

Of course non-confessional Lutherans & Anglicans/Episcopalians practice open communion but from my experience they practice sacred spaced to a higher degree than churches that teach that the elements in commun are only symbolic of the Lord's body and blood.

If my observations are correct, are there any options why there are degrees of practicing sacred space?

 

[Lamb]

That connection of those who hold to the Real Presence and having a reverence for the sanctuary is apparent. If you were to ask a Baptist about church he'd say, "You mean the building?" They admit that where 2 or 3 are gathered that God is present but don't see the holiness in the space we worship. They don't believe in the real presence because to them Jesus is stuck in heaven someplace and can't be with them. So there is no altar although there is an altar call. The band is up front taking the spotlight.

As for degrees of sacred spaces I am not sure of the answer but agree entirely with you on your list. My friend George is EO and he sometimes posts here. We talk on the phone about church a lot and he has a great reverence for the space and the service and they have a very high church liturgy. Do all EOs think the same way though? I doubt it. Just like I doubt that all LCMS congregants have the same reverence. I think that the more we push aside God from the service to focus on ME (theology of glory) then the less reverence there will be for the sacred space.

 

[Tigger]

Its also interesting to note that as Christians started transitioning from worshipping in synagogues to their own homes, the space in the home set aside for worship were not normally not used for anything else after the move.

 

[Lamb]

Its also interesting to note that as Christians started transitioning from worshipping in synagogues to their own homes, the space in the home set aside for worship were not normally not used for anything else after the move.

I did not know that piece of information! Could that be why some EOs and Catholics have corners set up for prayer?

 

[Josiah]

Tigger, you and I may disagree a bit on the issue of "closed communion" (and I don't want to hijack your good thread with that discussion) but there IS a difficult-to-define difference in how liturgical/sacramental churches "feel". It's very obvious and unmistakable but hard to describe. And yes, Catholics and Lutherans strongly share this (and while I can't personally testify of this, I suspect so do Orthodox and high church Anglicans/Episcopalians). It IS very apparent that it's missing from "Evangelical" churches and mostly from Reformed churches where "church" is just an assembly hall and worship just a loose collection of songs, prayers and teaching.


Probably because of my Catholic roots, this aspect mattered a LOT to me as I searched for a new church home. Some churches and worship didn't seem like church or worship. Important to me was to find a church that was liturgical and sacramental (that SOMETHING this thread is about), where the Sacrament was seriously embraced and seen as Jesus, that was pro-life (Catholicism REALLY impacted me on that topic!). Theology was #1 but these other things mattered. I was very pleased with the LCMS (although my parish is pretty "low church" but does have weekly Communion). I miss just a bit of the choreography of Catholicism (Processions, Recessions, genuflecting, kneeling) but I adjusted quickly. The chapel is very simple (it is a very small and not rich congregation) but that's totally okay.... it's the "feel" and attitude, not the building. It's quite unmistakable. Most of us are former Catholics (about half in our parish converted from Catholicism) and that maybe gives our parish a bit of a more "Catholic" feel than it might otherwise.


My only "beef" is dress. It's NOT a big deal for me (it's actually a small deal but I do permit it to bother me just a bit). It's a beach town in California were informality of dress is extreme. Now, I'm okay with boys (I'm probably talking about elementary school but maybe through high school) wearing shorts and a T-shirt because I realize that's what they wear and probably don't even own long pants - much less a suit. I give them a "pass." But we have ADULTS who dress just as informally for worship. Last Sunday, we had an usher (he's probably in his 50's) wearing shorts and a tank top (yes, a TANK TOP). It not only was NOT flattering but it bugged me. Sorry, but we are in GOD'S HOUSE and we are in the PRESENCE OF GOD and we are WORSHIPING; GOD has brought us here to bless us. IMO, this doesn't necessary mean a suit but hey, this is important.... I don't always wear a suit but if not, I wear nice pants (probably khakis) and a collared longsleave shirt and a tie, with at least NICE and clean athletic shoes if not "hard" leather shoes. It's WORSHIP. I know - I honestly and sincerely do - that all this is cultural, it's just cultural. But I think it's attitudinal too. I know I sound like I'm 89 instead of 29, lol. And honestly, I embrace these folks and don't say anything. But it does bother me a bit. And yes, these are most likely among our "Evangelical" converts but not always.



Pax Christi



- Josiah



.

 

[Lamb]

Tigger, you and I may disagree a bit on the issue of "closed communion" (and I don't want to hijack your good thread with that discussion) but there IS a difficult-to-define difference in how liturgical/sacramental churches "feel". It's very obvious but hard to describe. And yes, Catholics and Lutherans strongly share this (and while I can't personally testify of this, I suspect so do Orthodox and high church Anglicans/Episcopalians). It IS very apparent that it's missing from "Evangelical" churches and mostly from Reformed churches where "church" is just an assembly hall and worship just a loose collection of songs, prayers and teaching.


Probably because of my Catholic roots, this aspect mattered a LOT to me as I searched for a new church home. Some churches and worship didn't seem like church or worship.

This is probably why some feel that it's okay to turn the service into a rock concert or entertainment hall. Or even have the need to have members rolling around in the aisles trying to prove that the spirit is present...instead of letting God be God and have His word teach us, feed us and grow us.

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

It probably seems obvious to some but a while back I realized that the churches that practice sacred space first teach the real presence of Christ in the elements and second closed communion.

Starting with whom I think practice the highest level of sacred space in order are;
1st Orthodox
2nd Catholic
3rd confessional Lutheran
4th non-confessional Lutheran & Anglican/Episcopal

Of course non-confessional Lutherans & Anglicans/Episcopalians practice open communion but from my experience they practice sacred spaced to a higher degree than churches that teach that the elements in commun are only symbolic of the Lord's body and blood.

If my observations are correct, are there any options why there are degrees of practicing sacred space?

When one believes that God Himself is present in any particular space set aside as sacred ( such as during the administration of the Sacraments and the reading of the Word), that space will naturally be reverenced. When somebody is of the opinion that God is not especially any more present in one's worship space than He is anywhere else, there won't be that sense of reverence. Therein lies that danger that if one feels that God is just as present when one is at home as when one attends corporate worship, one will not feel any particular urgency to go to church at all. That's when faith begins to wither. I disagree with Open Communion because it has a false premise: when one worships in a particular church and takes Communion at that church, one is stating publicly that s/ he agrees with every aspect of what that particular church of that particular denomination teaches. If a PCUSA congregant takes Communion at an Episcopal Church, for example, although both bodies have Open Communion, the Presbyterian is saying that s/he agrees with the teachings of the Episcopalians at whose church s/ he is worshiping at that particular week. Do Reformed Christians accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist that the Anglicans do? I seriously doubt it. Things become a muddle and that's when if one space is as significant to God in the eyes of a worshiper as another, why even bother with any of it ( Christianity)?

 

[Lamb]

When one believes that God Himself is present in any particular space set aside as sacred ( such as during the administration of the Sacraments and the reading of the Word), that space will naturally be reverenced. When somebody is of the opinion that God is not especially any more present in one's worship space than He is anywhere else, there won't be that sense of reverence. Therein lies that danger that if one feels that God is just as present when one is at home as when one attends corporate worship, one will not feel any particular urgency to go to church at all. That's when faith begins to wither. I disagree with Open Communion because it has a false premise: when one worships in a particular church and takes Communion at that church, one is stating publicly that s/ he agrees with every aspect of what that particular church of that particular denomination teaches. If a PCUSA congregant takes Communion at an Episcopal Church, for example, although both bodies have Open Communion, the Presbyterian is saying that s/he agrees with the teachings of the Episcopalians at whose church s/ he is worshiping at that particular week. Do Reformed Christians accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist that the Anglicans do? I seriously doubt it. Things become a muddle and that's when if one space is as significant to God in the eyes of a worshiper as another, why even bother with any of it ( Christianity)?

I agree what you say about open communion. Communion is not only vertical (communion with God) but also horizontal (communion with the other congregants).

 

[Tigger]

Tigger, you and I may disagree a bit on the issue of "closed communion" (and I don't want to hijack your good thread with that discussion) but there IS a difficult-to-define difference in how liturgical/sacramental churches "feel".



Pax Christi



- Josiah



.

Hi Josiah,

I did limit the discussion to liturgical only denominations because I had a feeling I knew, without that distinction, what direction that would of ended up taking the thread but closed communion IMO is fair game in this thread.

I'm assuming you're thinking, you and I would be in disagreement on closed communion because I attend a LCMC congregation but the truth of the matter is, I prefer confessional Lutheran doctrine over non-confessional Lutheran doctrine. I, like you after leaving my E.O. parish, was looking for an evangelical, sacramental and liturgical church but at the time I didn't know there was a difference between the Lutheran sects. Don't get me wrong I like our congregation. The Sr. pastor gives great sermons and the congregation is very friendly but what's more important is my wife really likes this church. She comes from Venezuela and had only attended Catholic churches all of her life, so it was quite a culture shock for her from all of the different denominations I took her to visit with me. If we were to move or something else changed, causing us to seek out a new church home, I would be introducing her to LC-MS congregations.

 

[Josiah]

Tigger..... I have a less "closed" view of "closed" communion than some in the LCMS. I got into BIG trouble with a couple at CF over this and so frankly don't bring it up anymore. I don't hold to an ELCA "if-you-can-breath-you-can-take-communion" polity but it's also not "you-must-be-a-LCMS-Confirmed-member-of-this-parish-who-has-memorized-all-the-Confessions-and-believe-Pope-Francis-is-the-Antichrist" polity either. I think there's a lot of middle ground; my view would be at neither extreme. I put a lot of emphasis on being baptized, being a Christian, being repentant and accepting Real Presence. I'm good with "First Communion" and thus children participating (my parish has that in the 5th grade; I'd prefer it in second or third grade). I'm frankly pretty okay with Catholics participating.... but would hesitate with most Reformed and Evangelicals. I know. LOTS of LCMS jump all over me! Some have accused me of being heretical. Some hate my guts over this, lol (that's only slight hyperbole). I KNOW this is a 'hot' topic in the LCMS. I'm just not at either extreme in the battle. Sorry. With that, I'll totally exit that part of the discussion, lol.

But I'm totally with you on the milieu of which you spoke. Hard to describe but unmistakable.



Pax Christi



- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

I hate to say this, but although I've worshipped in some Lutheran churches in which a belief in what's being called "sacred space" was apparent, I have also worshipped in some LCMS and WELS churches that, frankly, were shockingly (to me) disorderly...much moreso than any Episcopal or Anglican church of my memory, even including the most theologically liberal ones.

Why this should be, considering the Lutheran view of the sacrament, I can't say.

 

[Lamb]

I hate to say this, but although I've worshipped in some Lutheran churches in which a belief in what's being called "sacred space" was apparent, I have also worshipped in some LCMS and WELS churches that, frankly, were shockingly (to me) disorderly...much moreso than any Episcopal or Anglican church of my memory, even including the most theologically liberal ones.

Why this should be, considering the Lutheran view of the sacrament, I can't say.

Do you recall if these LCMS & WELS churches that were disorderly were on the west coast where they are more liberal? In the midwest I've never encountered any like that and I've only been to one LCMS church on the east coast.

 

[Albion]

Lamm,

No, they were in the Midwest. Of course, I cannot conclude that they are characteristic of all LCMS or WELS congregations, but these are what I observed. And I would say that they were, theologically, quite conservative churches.

However, when it comes to this idea of sacred space, I wonder. If I were asked to offer some commentary based upon my own experience, I'd have to say that these people were seemingly well-grounded in the matter of Faith, Salvation, Scripture, and etc., and the sermons were solid, but that the people in general didn't have much of a sense of decorum or reverence. They might well have believed in the sacrament of the altar as their church teaches it, but when it comes to the idea of feeling themselves in "sacred space"...apparently not.

I didn't say this in order to be contrary, because I do have a high regard for Lutheranism, but it's one man's experience (mine) that I thought I'd throw into the discussion along with everyone else's views.

 

[Lamb]

Lamm,

No, they were in the Midwest. Of course, I cannot conclude that they are characteristic of all LCMS or WELS congregations, but these are what I observed. And I would say that they were, theologically, quite conservative churches.

However, when it comes to this idea of sacred space, I wonder. If I were asked to offer some commentary based upon my own experience, I'd have to say that these people were seemingly well-grounded in the matter of Faith, Salvation, Scripture, and etc., and the sermons were solid, but that the people in general didn't have much of a sense of decorum or reverence. They might well have believed in the sacrament of the altar as their church teaches it, but when it comes to the idea of feeling themselves in "sacred space"...apparently not.

I didn't say this in order to be contrary, because I do have a high regard for Lutheranism, but it's one man's experience (mine) that I thought I'd throw into the discussion along with everyone else's views.

In what ways were they disorderly? I'm curious.

 

[hedrick]

I agree that there is a different attitude, but I don't think it's associated with closed communion. Protestants that have closed communion may have it for a variety of reasons, including prioritizing doctrinal conformity and enforcing Church discipline. Not all of these are associated with high liturgy. Episcopal churches typically have open communion, but many have the feeling of reverence you describe.

 

[Tigger]

I agree that there is a different attitude, but I don't think it's associated with closed communion. Protestants that have closed communion may have it for a variety of reasons, including prioritizing doctrinal conformity and enforcing Church discipline. Not all of these are associated with high liturgy. Episcopal churches typically have open communion, but many have the feeling of reverence you describe.

Yeah our Episcopal cathedral is that way to where many congregants bow towards the altar before entering their pew isle and others kneel without being instructed during the words of institution of the Eucharist. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a visitor missed the Episcopal church sign upon entering and all of the female clergy just happened to take the day off the vistor could easily think they were in a Catholic church. Although the other Episcopal congregations I've visited didn't exhibit that degree of reverence.

 

[Josiah]

That connection of those who hold to the Real Presence and having a reverence for the sanctuary is apparent.

IMO, the "connection" is probably stronger to being liturgical and sacramental (and yes, Real Presence likely is involved). I'm not SURE the primary (or even strong) connection is "closed communion" fellowship.

IMO, the "sense" that Tigger mentions is unmistakable; I too have "felt" this strongly.

IMO, I tend to agree with the observation that there are some liturgical/sacramental parishes where this attitude/atmosphere/spirituality is not strong (and that includes some LCMS churches) but I'd SUSPECT one possible "reason" for this is not their lack of embrace of "closed" fellowship but of liturgical worship: some parishes have largely abandoned liturgical worship and embrace a more "evangelical" camp meeting sort of worship. I'm NOT at all passing judgement (Lutherans believe that there is no mandated form of worship and that it is NOT necessary that we all worship the same way) only that it's MY theory (with nothing to support it) that the "connection" is more to liturgical worship than to fellowship polities. I could be very wrong.



My half cent.


- Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

In what ways were they disorderly? I'm curious.

Well, prior to the start of the worship service, the place was just a gathering place. In most liturgical churches, that's a time when there is quiet meditation or private prayer, not chit-chat with people in the next pew while the kiddies come and go. And during the service itself, I observed people looking quite bored and not bothering to join in the congregational responses. In addition, all manner of casual dress seems to be considered appropriate, as though the folks were heading off to a ball game rather than to worship. In addition, I saw quite a lot of improvising with the liturgy itself, in order to recognize Mother's Day or to work in something like a bit of 'liturgical dance,' etc. But as I said before, this doesn't describe all the congregations I've visited over the years and it's not confined to any one denomination. Some have been quite the opposite. Yet, I did think it was worth mentioning that when the subject of "sacred space" is raised, that's not something that's as clearcut as I think some posters feel it to be.

 

[Lamb]

Well, prior to the start of the worship service, the place was just a gathering place. In most liturgical churches, that's a time when there is quiet meditation or private prayer, not chit-chat with people in the next pew while the kiddies come and go. And during the service itself, I observed people looking quite bored and not bothering to join in the congregational responses. In addition, all manner of casual dress seems to be considered appropriate, as though the folks were heading off to a ball game rather than to worship. In addition, I saw quite a lot of improvising with the liturgy itself, in order to recognize Mother's Day or to work in something like a bit of 'liturgical dance,' etc. But as I said before, this doesn't describe all the congregations I've visited over the years and it's not confined to any one denomination. Some have been quite the opposite. Yet, I did think it was worth mentioning that when the subject of "sacred space" is raised, that's not something that's as clearcut as I think some posters feel it to be.

I know that we are taught that the time before the service should be used for quiet meditation. That doesn't always happen. If you have a country church there are people who don't live near each other and so they're happy to see their friends, especially if they can't make it to the service all the time. So, having been in both types of church I can understand both sides.

Joining in the responses...my husband who is Catholic would not join in on the responses so people might suspect him of being bored and disrespectful. And yes, there might be parishioners who also don't respond and I don't know why they wouldn't. Could be health issues. I go to an older congregation and I see a lot of members with health problems that prevent them from standing, kneeling or singing.

I personally don't like the changing up of the liturgy to squeeze in a secular occasion! So I agree with you there. I'm wondering if pastors do so under pressure from others and just cave instead of fighting the issue?

I suppose where there is a complaint of things that there are times that a good excuse or reason can be given.

 

[Albion]

I know that we are taught that the time before the service should be used for quiet meditation. That doesn't always happen. If you have a country church there are people who don't live near each other and so they're happy to see their friends, especially if they can't make it to the service all the time. So, having been in both types of church I can understand both sides.

Yes, but right from the start of this thread, the point was made that members of the liturgical churches supposedly have a concept of or belief in "sacred space." The thread isn't just about maintaining an historic form of worship or believing in the Real Presence. So, if the people see the place as you describe, I can easily understand why that is--and it's not sacrilegious or anything like that--but it's not reflective of them having a concept of "sacred space." That' was my thinking, anyway.

Joining in the responses...my husband who is Catholic would not join in on the responses so people might suspect him of being bored and disrespectful. And yes, there might be parishioners who also don't respond and I don't know why they wouldn't. Could be health issues. I go to an older congregation and I see a lot of members with health problems that prevent them from standing, kneeling or singing.

I don't see any reason to second-guess every example I cited. When I say that there are bored or impatient or distracted attendees present, I am saying that it's more than an occasional person who, for whatever reason, may seem out of step. And I would hope that you could trust me to know the difference, as for instance with the elderly who choose to crouch or sit instead of kneeling. We all understand that fact of life.

I personally don't like the changing up of the liturgy to squeeze in a secular occasion! So I agree with you there. I'm wondering if pastors do so under pressure from others and just cave instead of fighting the issue?

I would doubt it. The fact is that much of this would be just unthinkable to the great majority of the parishioners in a church that really did inculcate a sense of "sacred space."