Communion for all, no questions asked?

[Albion]

There is a trend in the direction of allowing or inviting everybody to receive Holy Communion, regardless of church affiliation or, more importantly, whether or not the communicant has ever been baptized, made a confession of faith, claimed a born again experience...or any of that.

Each side in the argument has, as might be expected, some Biblical verses to present and a lot of reasoning. What would you answer if asked about the policy? Would your own church go along with this approach?

 

[Josiah]

There is an ECLA church in my town (the ELCA is the liberal branch of Lutheranism in the USA). This church has a dominate announcement on the main page of their website that "ALL are welcomed to Communion!" It then goes on to say in small print how wrong many churches are to "forbid". Which must mean - 2 year olds are welcomed.... Muslims are welcomed.... atheist are welcomed.... Really? Evidently. On the other hand, there are SOME LCMS churches that I think also err in this subject, in the other direction.


As in so many aspects of "fellowship", I find a "tension" here....
On the one hand, this is GOSPEL.... it's all about forgiveness... we are not "gatekeepers"... Jesus is embracing.
On the other hand the Bible says this can be to our harm... it does say we are to "discern" Christ... we are commanded to EXAMINE ourselves first (obviously for something). it is not for everyone (in spite of what that "Lutheran" church claims)


To ME, what's important is to INFORM - to let Christians know what this gift is and what what it is about, and then let people example THEMSELEVES. That's what the Bible says.... "Let a man examine HIMSELF" Not "Let a church examine everyone." The role of the church is NOT "gatekeeper" or "examiner" but educator - to help all examine themselves.


IMO, the following is what is important:

1 Are Christians. This is for Christians. My parish actually says "Baptized Christian" - I'm not so sure the baptism part is important but the Christian is. I think we are to examine ourselves for faith. This Sacrament if "for the forgiveness of sins" and such is promised only to believers.

2. For the repentant. This is for the forgiveness of sins. The liturgy puts strong emphasis on our repentance and God's mercy in Christ. We are to examine ourselves for repentance. Those who are not aware and sorry for their sins have no cause to participate in this.

3. Acknowledge Christ's Real Presence. The Bible specifically states we are to discern Christ's body and blood here. We are to examine ourselves to see if we discern His Body and Blood here.

So, those 3 things: Christian.... repentant.... accept Christ's Real Presence. What I do NOT think is mandated is that one has attained the magical age of X or that one has been Confirmed in an LCMS congregtion and is in full agreement with the LCMS on everything. I'm perfectly okay with a Catholic or Orthodox receiving Communion in an LCMS church..... not so sure about a Zwinglian Baptist or Pentecostal. And I certainly have questions about a Muslim or atheist.




.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[psalms 91]

There is an ECLA church in my town (the ELCA is the liberal branch of Lutheranism in the USA). This church has a dominate announcement on the main page of their website that "ALL are welcomed to Communion!" It then goes on to say in small print how wrong many churches are to "forbid". Which must mean - 2 year olds are welcomed.... Muslims are welcomed.... atheist are welcomed.... Really? Evidently. On the other hand, there are SOME LCMS churches that I think also err in this subject, in the other direction.


As in so many aspects of "fellowship", I find a "tension" here....
On the one hand, this is GOSPEL.... it's all about forgiveness... we are not "gatekeepers"... Jesus is embracing.
On the other hand the Bible says this can be to our harm... it does say we are to "discern" Christ... we are commanded to EXAMINE ourselves first (obviously for something). it is not for everyone (in spite of what that "Lutheran" church claims)


To ME, what's important is to INFORM - to let Christians know what this gift is and what what it is about, and then let people example THEMSELEVES. That's what the Bible says.... "Let a man examine HIMSELF" Not "Let a church examine everyone." The role of the church is NOT "gatekeeper" or "examiner" but educator - to help all examine themselves.


IMO, the following is what is important:

1 Are Christians. This is for Christians. My parish actually says "Baptized Christian" - I'm not so sure the baptism part is important but the Christian is. I think we are to examine ourselves for faith. This Sacrament if "for the forgiveness of sins" and such is promised only to believers.

2. For the repentant. This is for the forgiveness of sins. The liturgy puts strong emphasis on our repentance and God's mercy in Christ. We are to examine ourselves for repentance. Those who are not aware and sorry for their sins have no cause to participate in this.

3. Acknowledge Christ's Real Presence. The Bible specifically states we are to discern Christ's body and blood here. We are to examine ourselves to see if we discern His Body and Blood here.

So, those 3 things: Christian.... repentant.... accept Christ's Real Presence. What I do NOT think is mandated is that one has attained the magical age of X or that one has been Confirmed in an LCMS congregtion and is in full agreement with the LCMS on everything. I'm perfectly okay with a Catholic or Orthodox receiving Communion in an LCMS church..... not so sure about a Zwinglian Baptist or Pentecostal. And I certainly have questions about a Muslim or atheist.




.

I agree with this I think an open table is a good thing but I also think it should be addressed each time how serious it is and what it actually is

 

[NewCreation435]

There is a trend in the direction of allowing or inviting everybody to receive Holy Communion, regardless of church affiliation or, more importantly, whether or not the communicant has ever been baptized, made a confession of faith, claimed a born again experience...or any of that.

Each side in the argument has, as might be expected, some Biblical verses to present and a lot of reasoning. What would you answer if asked about the policy? Would your own church go along with this approach?

My church explains what communion means and gives the individual the opportunity to respond if they desire to. We practice open communion.

 

[Josiah]

My church explains what communion means and gives the individual the opportunity to respond if they desire to. We practice open communion.

If one completely disagrees with what Communion means as your parish explains such, are they still welcomed? What if one is a Mormon? A Muslim? An atheist? I often wonder if "open communion" doesn't actually mean that. IMO, I find that SOME throw terms like "open" and "closed" and don't really mean either. Seems to ME there is a LOT of "leeway" in practice.

IMO (and that's ALL, just my current OPINION) it's often right to let the folks in the pew know that they ARE to "examine themselves" as Scripture says - and what for? I would be really hesitent for a pastor to DENY someone who has come forward to receive communion.... but I also feel it is the parish's responsibility to inform and assist folks in this examining. What for? What is appropriate for those seeking this? In that case, it's not "open" (anyone, everyone is welcomed and encouraged no matter what). But again, I think this is a matter of praxis and such if often hard to be dogmatic about. But I see some "middle ground." Exactly "where" in that "middle ground".... well..... not sure we can be dogmatic about it and probably best (if difficult) to handle this on an individual basis.



Kind of a different issue, but I also believe it is at least polite to accept the polity of that parish (and thus it is essential that it clearly STATE such). At times, I attend a Catholic Church. I know that as a Lutheran, I'm (OFFICIALLY anyway - although most priests couldn't care less) not invited to participate - but I am more than welcomed to come forward for a blessing and I know how to do that in a Catholic Church - and that's what I do. It's NOT a matter of "I'm so smart that I'll just impose MY views on this church and receive it - the only one doing it right!" No... the RCC has an official dogma on this..... an official polity on this.... they make it known (for which I give them MUCH credit).... and I'm a GUEST there, I should be a polite guest in the house of another and not IMPOSE my thoughts on them. A little humility and respect goes a long way.




.

 

[Albion]

My church explains what communion means and gives the individual the opportunity to respond if they desire to. We practice open communion.

OK, and that is not an unusual policy these days, from what I gather.

My first thought when reading the post, then, was, "Please also tell us what reasoning went into making this policy switch?" Unless your church is Quaker or one of a handful of very nontraditional Christian denominations (which I do not think is the case), it wouldnt have had this policy in the past, I'm pretty sure.

 

[psalms 91]

If one completely disagrees with what Communion means as your parish explains such, are they still welcomed? What if one is a Mormon? A Muslim? An atheist? I often wonder if "open communion" doesn't actually mean that. IMO, I find that SOME throw terms like "open" and "closed" and don't really mean either. Seems to ME there is a LOT of "leeway" in practice.

IMO (and that's ALL, just my current OPINION) it's often right to let the folks in the pew know that they ARE to "examine themselves" as Scripture says - and what for? I would be really hesitent for a pastor to DENY someone who has come forward to receive communion.... but I also feel it is the parish's responsibility to inform and assist folks in this examining. What for? What is appropriate for those seeking this? In that case, it's not "open" (anyone, everyone is welcomed and encouraged no matter what). But again, I think this is a matter of praxis and such if often hard to be dogmatic about. But I see some "middle ground." Exactly "where" in that "middle ground".... well..... not sure we can be dogmatic about it and probably best (if difficult) to handle this on an individual basis.



Kind of a different issue, but I also believe it is at least polite to accept the polity of that parish (and thus it is essential that it clearly STATE such). At times, I attend a Catholic Church. I know that as a Lutheran, I'm (OFFICIALLY anyway - although most priests couldn't care less) not invited to participate - but I am more than welcomed to come forward for a blessing and I know how to do that in a Catholic Church - and that's what I do. It's NOT a matter of "I'm so smart that I'll just impose MY views on this church and receive it - the only one doing it right!" No... the RCC has an official dogma on this..... an official polity on this.... they make it known (for which I give them MUCH credit).... and I'm a GUEST there, I should be a polite guest in the house of another and not IMPOSE my thoughts on them. A little humility and respect goes a long way.




.

Yes, I know and anyone who has followed what I write knows that for me it is a sticking point as I dont think any believer should be refused communion. I will not attend a Catholic church because of this.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I know and anyone who has followed what I write knows that for me it is a sticking point as I dont think any believer should be refused communion. I will not attend a Catholic church because of this.

The key word there would seem to be "believer."

So, if that is the policy, its not really "open communion" as the word has gotten to be used lately. It is something in the middle, you might say.

 

[NewCreation435]

If one completely disagrees with what Communion means as your parish explains such, are they still welcomed? What if one is a Mormon? A Muslim? An atheist? I often wonder if "open communion" doesn't actually mean that. IMO, I find that SOME throw terms like "open" and "closed" and don't really mean either. Seems to ME there is a LOT of "leeway" in practice.

IMO (and that's ALL, just my current OPINION) it's often right to let the folks in the pew know that they ARE to "examine themselves" as Scripture says - and what for? I would be really hesitent for a pastor to DENY someone who has come forward to receive communion.... but I also feel it is the parish's responsibility to inform and assist folks in this examining. What for? What is appropriate for those seeking this? In that case, it's not "open" (anyone, everyone is welcomed and encouraged no matter what). But again, I think this is a matter of praxis and such if often hard to be dogmatic about. But I see some "middle ground." Exactly "where" in that "middle ground".... well..... not sure we can be dogmatic about it and probably best (if difficult) to handle this on an individual basis.



Kind of a different issue, but I also believe it is at least polite to accept the polity of that parish (and thus it is essential that it clearly STATE such). At times, I attend a Catholic Church. I know that as a Lutheran, I'm (OFFICIALLY anyway - although most priests couldn't care less) not invited to participate - but I am more than welcomed to come forward for a blessing and I know how to do that in a Catholic Church - and that's what I do. It's NOT a matter of "I'm so smart that I'll just impose MY views on this church and receive it - the only one doing it right!" No... the RCC has an official dogma on this..... an official polity on this.... they make it known (for which I give them MUCH credit).... and I'm a GUEST there, I should be a polite guest in the house of another and not IMPOSE my thoughts on them. A little humility and respect goes a long way.




.

with over 1,200 people in attendance on Sundays there is no way that the staff and pastor are going to be able to know or question every person. The pastor knows me because I made a point of going to have breakfast with him one day and introducing myself to him. Like I said, the leadership role is to explain the function and purpose of the Lord's Supper and it is up to the individual to respond accordingly.

 

[Josiah]

The key word there would seem to be "believer."

So, if that is the policy, its not really "open communion" as the word has gotten to be used lately. It is something in the middle, you might say.

I think in most cases, the reality is that the practice is "somewhere in the middle." NOT open or closed.


But sometimes, it effectively IS Open Communion, I think in some big churches, all church responsibility has been entirely and wholly neglected - so that it effectively IS "EVERYONE Communion." Some just put some short, EXTREMELY VAGUE thingy somewhere, and feel all responsibility is satisfied - it's up to the individual to know where this statement is, read it, understand it, and respond in an informed, responsible manner. Probably a lot of bad assumptions there. And then some don't even do that! Some churches just do NOTHING (my Catholic parish was one of those.... there was NOTHING in the bulletin or anywhere that stated the beliefs or practices or customs or expectations of that parish - NOTHING).

I suspect that parishes take this as seriously as they take the Sacrament. If it's just a meaningless, inconvenient ritual done occasionally because Jesus said to ... involving nothing more than little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice... then there's really no reason to see any responsibility for anything here. No more than with the coffee time after church.



IMO (that's all)... I think the church has a responsibility to teach and inform about the Sacrament, and to help the individual "evaluate himself" as the Bible commands. It should not forsake its responsibility (even if such is difficult in mega churches). On the other hand, I don't think it should "evaluate" FOR them by excluding all who are not registered members there or confirmed in their denomination - broad, sweeping "rules" the Bible knows nothing about.



My half cent.



- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

with over 1,200 people in attendance on Sundays there is no way that the staff and pastor are going to be able to know or question every person. The pastor knows me because I made a point of going to have breakfast with him one day and introducing myself to him. Like I said, the leadership role is to explain the function and purpose of the Lord's Supper and it is up to the individual to respond accordingly.

Not to argue with that, but we have generally become tolerant, uncritical, broadminded, etc. about so many things these days that in a time when it is thought stuffy to ask people not to wear shorts to church, it is not surprising that open communion would be common.

However, in the early church (which most denominations claim to take as their standard and guiding example) the Sacred Meal was not something to be served up to just anyone. In fact, aspirants--people studying to become church members--were required to leave the premises when the preparation of the Communion elements started, and long before the actual distribution.

Rightly or wrongly, the belief was that this was a sacrament that, in addition to everything else (Real Presence, Memorial, whatever), was a true fellowship meal, a ceremony that was a bond between God and Man and also between the members of Christs church. It was thought wrong to distribute it to just anyone who walked through the door.

 

[Albion]

I suspect that parishes take this as seriously as they take the Sacrament. If it's just a meaningless, inconvenient ritual done occasionally because Jesus said to ... involving nothing more than little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice... then there's really no reason to see any responsibility for anything here. No more than with the coffee time after church.

- Josiah

There probably are about a half-dozen approaches to this matter that are in practice these days, but recently The Episcopal Church announced that it was beginning a conversation about the possibility of having Communion be open to unbaptized persons. Previously, and whether or not there was a printed or spoken admonition that self-examination was necessary and/or something about the Real Presence, it was expected that the communicant be already baptized. That would be eliminated (along with everything else, I am sure) if a change is adopted.

 

[NewCreation435]

Not to argue with that, but we have generally become tolerant, uncritical, broadminded, etc. about so many things these days that in a time when it is thought stuffy to ask people not to wear shorts to church, it is not surprising that open communion would be common.

However, in the early church (which most denominations claim to take as their standard and guiding example) the Sacred Meal was not something to be served up to just anyone. In fact, aspirants--people studying to become church members--were required to leave the premises when the preparation of the Communion elements started, and long before the actual distribution.

Rightly or wrongly, the belief was that this was a sacrament that, in addition to everything else (Real Presence, Memorial, whatever), was a true fellowship meal, a ceremony that was a bond between God and Man and also between the members of Christs church. It was thought wrong to distribute it to just anyone who walked through the door.

i actually agree with everything you just said

 

[MennoSota]

The key word there would seem to be "believer."

So, if that is the policy, its not really "open communion" as the word has gotten to be used lately. It is something in the middle, you might say.

It's open communion. The hinge point, once again, revolves around the function of communion itself. If you view the ceremony as a mystical merger of the real body and blood of Jesus, you will close the communion for fear your ceremony is being corrupted by non-believers participating. If you view the ceremony as symbolic and in remembrance of what Jesus did, once and for all, then you recognize that there will be no fruitful remembrance if an unbeliever participates while the remembrance of the believer will be blessed and filled with gratitude.
It all comes back to how literal you take Jesus words in regards to his body and his blood.

 

[NewCreation435]

OK, and that is not an unusual policy these days, from what I gather.

My first thought when reading the post, then, was, "Please also tell us what reasoning went into making this policy switch?" Unless your church is Quaker or one of a handful of very nontraditional Christian denominations (which I do not think is the case), it wouldnt have had this policy in the past, I'm pretty sure.

Well, since 1985 I have been Baptist and the Baptist churches I have been a part of it has always been that way.
It would be in most cases difficult to stop someone who wanted to take communion without being disruptive since the elements are given from the pastor to the deacon and the deacons pass the plates down each row. So, people don't come up to the front of the church to receive it directly from the pastor anyway.

 

[Albion]

It would be in most cases difficult to stop someone who wanted to take communion without being disruptive since the elements are given from the pastor to the deacon and the deacons pass the plates down each row. So, people don't come up to the front of the church to receive it directly from the pastor anyway.

That is the fact in almost all these churches, no matter what their policy. Unless the congregation is very small, anyone who thinks the policy is ridiculous and decides to partake no matter what the church's policy is...most likely can get away with it.

I have read people on other forums saying that they did so on more than one occasion and thought it perfectly right to do. Besides that, few ministers or priests would stop the service to challenge a stranger (although I have seen it done in an Eastern Orthodox church).

So we are talking here about what is right or wrong policy-wise, but not about enforcing the policy.

 

[Resources]

There is a trend in the direction of allowing or inviting everybody to receive Holy Communion, regardless of church affiliation or, more importantly, whether or not the communicant has ever been baptized, made a confession of faith, claimed a born again experience...or any of that.

Each side in the argument has, as might be expected, some Biblical verses to present and a lot of reasoning. What would you answer if asked about the policy? Would your own church go along with this approach?

Holy Communion is a grace. So we can't earn it or deserve it. However, receiving communion unprepared is a dangerous act. So people must be instructed before receiving.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a trend in the direction of allowing or inviting everybody to receive Holy Communion, regardless of church affiliation or, more importantly, whether or not the communicant has ever been baptized, made a confession of faith, claimed a born again experience...or any of that.

Each side in the argument has, as might be expected, some Biblical verses to present and a lot of reasoning. What would you answer if asked about the policy?

The policy in the Catholic Church is that only Catholic Christians who are not in a state of unconfessed and unabsolved mortal sin may partake with a good conscience and those in a state of mortal sin or who are not Catholic Christians ought not partake and will be refused if it is known that such is the case with them.

Would your own church go along with this approach?

The Catholic Church does not go along with any form of "open communion" and certainly would not knowingly approve of giving communion to people "regardless of church affiliation or, more importantly, whether or not the communicant has ever been baptized, made a confession of faith, claimed a born again experience...or any of that". But no guarantee can be given that individual priests, deacons, or extraordinary ministers of the holy Eucharist would assiduously adhere to Catholic teaching on this matter. With a membership of over a billion people guarantees about behaviour for all members cannot be given but the teaching of the Catholic Church is rather clear about the matter of communion and "worthy reception" thereof.

 

[Arsenios]

Not to argue with that, but we have generally become tolerant, uncritical, broadminded, etc. about so many things these days that in a time when it is thought stuffy to ask people not to wear shorts to church, it is not surprising that open communion would be common.

Not surprising at all, for such churches have secularized their services...

However, in the early church (which most denominations claim to take as their standard and guiding example) the Sacred Meal was not something to be served up to just anyone. In fact, aspirants--people studying to become church members--were required to leave the premises when the preparation of the Communion elements started, and long before the actual distribution.

In our monasteries, this is still frequently the practice... In our particular parish, which is traditional, we still call for all the catechumens to depart at the end of the first half of the liturgy, even though in fact we no longer observe the obedience for this call - When I was a catechumen, I departed, personal choice... And we love the fact that most of our women faithful cover their heads in services... Some do not, with no opprobium... We are glad they are here...

Rightly or wrongly, the belief was that this was a sacrament that, in addition to everything else (Real Presence, Memorial, whatever), was a true fellowship meal, a ceremony that was a bond between God and Man and also between the members of Christs church. It was thought wrong to distribute it to just anyone who walked through the door.

It is the Mystery of the Body and the Blood of our Lord... We not only will not give it to anyone not Baptized into the Church, and not guilty of any unconfessed and unremitted sin, but we also require a recent confession, and beyond this, the praying of the Prayers of Preparation for Holy Communion just prior to Receiving... And this because we know it is real, and we do not wish to harm those who might receive it in an unworthy manner - Not that we are worthy, but we act in obedience to the manner of Receiving Christ prescribed, as it has been handed down to us...

Most Christian Churches do not regard Marriage as a Sacramental Mystery of the Church, and then complain that the State is legallizing same sex marriages... And the same inroads are not being established regarding the must fundamental Mystery of the Covenant of the Body and Blood of our Lord...

Sometimes the Old Ways turn out to be the best ways...
Which have been practiced in all times by all in the Church...


Arsenios