Sunday, August 30, 2015

No one but. . .

Justin Martyr, Apology I:66:

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Having been reminded of this great quote of Justin Martyr (HT John Stephenson), we find again the great body of evidence that says that the only communion hospitality worth anything is that which proceeds from the common faith of those who discern Christ's body and blood, who live in repentant faith as the baptized, seeking to live the new life declared to them in that baptism by the Holy Spirit.  Anything less than this unity of faith and common life flowing form the font only betrays the meal and the Lord who is host and food.  It is not our supper or the Church's meal but Christ's table.  It is His witness and words that tell us who is welcome and who is not -- less to exclude some than to prevent those not of the same faith from receiving to their harm the presence of Christ (meant sacramentally but which can surely also be judgment against the communicant when faith in these words is not present).

Interestingly, I have found it more common that people from other churches (non-sacramental) are more likely to tell me that this is indeed what they believe.  To wit I must ask "Then why do you belong to a church that does not believe and teach thusly?"  And therein lies the rub.  Many pious Christians take the Word at its face value but belong to churches wherein that Word is denied.  Now they do so for a variety of reasons but perhaps the hardest is to admit that the presence of Christ in the Supper is itself a doctrinal issue of the first part.  So the challenge to them is not only why are in a church that does not confess and teach faithfully as you yourself acknowledge and why do you not condemn the error?  Perhaps the typical answer is that we believe that the Lord's Supper is portable, that is, it is what I think it is and not what my present church home might believe.  So what becomes operative here is the faith of the individual.  They are less forthcoming at how it is possible for two people to be together at the rail and one receive the Body of Christ and the other merely bread.  Lest we Lutherans think to highly of ourselves, this is the receptionist error that remains hidden among us as well.  The presence of Christ is conditional upon the throat and faith of the believer or else Christ does not come.  I do not understand how it is possible to hold onto such contradictory views but we as people are nothing if we are not inconsistent and fraught with contradiction.  I am sure that I have my own inconsistencies as well.  Which all the more points to the need for us to research what churches believe, confess, and teach and to be captive to the Word within the faithful confession.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I understand your post. And I agree that open communion is unacceptable. But your position is there must be total unity on all articles of faith before someone outside the LCMS can commune at your church. And, I assume, those articles of faith are defined in the Book of Concord (BoC). As a former long time LCMS member, I can tell you I did not, nor did my extended LCMS family and friends, have any idea what the BoC was. And I'll bet that's still true today amongst many LCMS members. There are articles of faith in the BoC which I did not believe as a LCMS Christian (because I was not taught and did not know). And I don't accept them today (e.g., we play no role whatsoever in our conversion). Did I believe the body of blood of Christ were present in the bread and wine - yes. And I still do today as a Continuing Anglican. But I would be denied the Eucharist in some LCMS churches. Wouldn't a better approach be that one must be baptized and agree with the LCMS position on the real presence in the Eucharist before being allowed to commune? (I have seen this definition in some LCMS churches I've visited.)

In reality, there are very few denominations outside of the LCMS which still believe in the real presence in Holy Communion. I'd argue the Catholics, Orthodox, Polish National Catholic Church and Continuing Anglicans are about it. Most church bodies of the evangelical persuasion do not. So you are correct to challenge why they personally believe in the real presence but their church body does not. Maybe they do not know because they were not taught what their church body believes. Your approach to asking them why the inconsistency is certainly a good opportunity to share sacramental theology.

James

Carl Vehse said...

James: "As a former long time LCMS member, I can tell you I did not, nor did my extended LCMS family and friends, have any idea what the BoC was."

1. In the past most catechumens were taught using Luther's SC with Explanation, which had Q&As covering not only the SC but other important articles of doctrine in some of the other Symbols in the Book of Concord. The pastor should have at least mentioned the BoC sometime during the class.

2. In his confirmation, usually before the congregation, a Lutheran catechcumen answers affirmatively when asked by the pastor: "Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from them, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true?" Here the confirmand is confessing the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church exposited in the Lutheran Confessions, not just the SC. The Lutheran Church does not have two different levels of doctrinal confession; only one.

3. Furthermore in becoming a new communicant member of a LCMS congregation a person agrees with his congregation's constitution, which states to the effect that communicant members accept the confessional standard of that congregation, which is a quia confession to the Book of Concord, the same as that in the Constitution of the Synod.

4. Depending on the size and nature of the congregation, there will be ongoing adult Bible classes, which typically include some refresher lessons in the SC, possibly using the LC or some CPH publications about the Lutheran Confessions. Perhaps communicant members occasionally should be surveyed to name the Symbols of the Lutheran Confessions (even the one the Missouri Synod Constitution doesn't mention by name).

5. When fitting a particular point being made in a sermon, a pastor may also refer (which I have heard) to an appropriate part of the Lutheran Confessions in addition to Scripture.

It is difficult to understand how a person, who was confirmed a Lutheran, and was faithful in worship and in a Lutheran congregation's adult education progam would have no idea what the BoC was. Now for a Lufauxran congregation, that's different story.

David Gray said...

" Here the confirmand is confessing the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church exposited in the Lutheran Confessions, not just the SC. "

As has been observed before this simply isn't true and anyone with a full mastery of the English language may examine the statement and discover the willfullness of Mr. Strickert's error.

Carl Vehse said...

The English is clear. The confirmand is asked to confess as faithful and true the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures. This doctrine is exposited in the Lutheran Confessions.

The phrase, "as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism," refers to the typical document used in catechism classes to learn "it" [the doctrine]; the phrase does not limit the scope or narrow the Lutheran confirmand's confession to some subset of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Lufauxrans seek to limit their subscription in a quatenus manner, limiting what they confess to those articles or Symbols or subsequent interpretations of doctrine to match they personal views and preferences.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Strickert, I fully expected such a response from you. And you did not disappoint. I attended LCMS churches in Michigan, Maryland, Washington, and Tennessee. I never once heard the mention of the BoC from the pulpit or Bible classes. Yes, I was taught from Luther's Small Catechism as a child. But no mention of the BoC.

But I don't want to miss the point of Pastor Peters' post. Must one agree with every article of faith before gaining access to the Lord's table. I'd argue no because in reality it does not exist currently within the LCMS. As the example I've stated earlier, I have visited more than one LCMS church which only requires baptism and agreement on the real presence. Membership in the LCMS is not a prerequisite. I respect Pastor Peters' position at his church and would never subvert it if I visited. But in reality, the Continuing Anglican church I attend has more unity in faith with Confessional Lutheranism than many LCMS churches I've attended or visited.

Thought provoking post. Thank you.

James

David Gray said...

Biblically I see two reasons for barring someone from the table. The first is if they are not repentant. The second is if they do not discern the Lord's body in the Supper.

Carl Vehse said...

James: "Must one agree with every article of faith before gaining access to the Lord's table. I'd argue no because in reality it does not exist currently within the LCMS."

James, you argue from a premise that only perfect visible churches are permitted to have closed communion. This shows a confusion between the invisible church and visible church, as well as a confusion between the doctrinal confession of a church body and the aberrant practices of some of its members.

The Missouri Synod official position, congruent with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions is that complete doctrinal agreement is necessary for the sharing of the Lord’s Supper (closed communion), as well as for Altar & Pulpit Fellowship.

Sadly, some Lufauxrans in the Missouri Synod have promoted or allowed otherwise, or, while claiming to be "confessional Lutherans," have looked the other way while Missouri Synod members have violated their confirmation and ordination promises.

If these Lufauxran members do not repent, they should be removed from synodical membership and from communicant membership in LCMS congregations. The fact that some of these Lufauxrans have remained for years, even in District/Synod leadership positions, demonstrates only a failing within the church corporate organization to exert ecclesiastical supervision, not in the failing of the Missouri Synod confessed doctrine and practice.

Anonymous said...

I stand with James on this point. He is correct. The supposed unity with in even a single LCMS congregation is a fiction; not all agree on every point of doctrine. I have seen this demonstrated in LCMS adult classes.

Jesus Christ did not institute the Holy Communion with words to the effect, "... given for the LCMS." He said, "... given for you," and there was not a single LCMS Lutheran at the table.

The crucial issues are Baptism and belief in the Real Presence. It is wrong to deny the Holy Communion to any Christian who meets these two criteria (some might add a third requirement, belief in the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed).

Fr. D+
Continuing Anglican Priest

Carl Vehse said...

In his Amerikanisch-Lutherische Pastoraltheologie (p. 145), C.F.W. Walther states:

"Another uniqueness of the Last Supper, as in the Holy Sacraments, is that it is one of the characteristic standards of the Church and seals of doctrine and faith. (Rom. 4: 11 comp. 1 Cor. 10: 21 Exod. 12: 48.) Hence in whatever church one partakes of the Holy Supper, one professes that church and its doctrine. There cannot be a more intense and fraternal fellowship than that into which one enters with those in whose company one enjoys the Holy Supper (1 Cor. 11:26 and 10:17). There is therefore a great difference between sometimes listening to a sermon in an alien ecclesial communion and partaking there in the celebration of the Holy Supper. You can probably listen at times to the sermon, perhaps to get to know the teaching of such a party without thereby participating in falsely believing worship; Holy Communion, by way of contrast, is an act of confession; if one communes in an alien church, one actually joins it, appears as a witness for its doctrine, and pronounces its members one's brothers and sisters in the faith."

Translation mostly taken from "Admission to the Lutheran Altar: Reflections on Open Versus Close Communion" (John Stephenson, Concordia Theological Quarterly, 53:1-2, January-April 1989, p. 45).

Carl Vehse said...

Fr. D.: "The supposed unity with in even a single LCMS congregation is a fiction; not all agree on every point of doctrine."

As explained in the excerpt from Walther, communicants witness their confession to the (entire!) doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church when they partake of the Lord's Supper at a local congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

If a communicant member publicly refuses to subscribe to various articles of the Lutheran doctrinal confession, and is allowed to commune anyway, then the Lutheran pastor, as the celebrant, is guilty of practicing open communion. If a communicant member secretly rejects part or all of the Lutheran Confessions, but takes communion anyway, then the burden of sin is on him.

Anonymous said...

The supposed unity of an LCMS or any other congregation is due less than their individual awareness of all confessional documents or their consent to them than it is due to their willingness to be bound by them and to submit to their authority overall.

Carl Vehse said...

The Missouri Synod’s “Guidelines for the Constitution and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation” includes this recommended wording for communicant membership:

"Communicant members are those baptized members who have been instructed and are familiar with the contents of Luther’s Small Catechism, have been confirmed in the Lutheran faith, and accept the confessional standard of Section of this Constitution [the same as the Synodical confessional standard].” [Emphasis added]

In becoming a communicant member of a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation, the individual agrees to accept the Lutheran confessional standard even though the communicant member probably is not aware or familiar with all of the 1580 BoC, in the official German, nor has the member probably compared the doctrine contained in the German Book of Concord with the available Hebrew or Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments.

Anonymous' statement, "The supposed unity of an LCMS or any other congregation is due less [to] their individual awareness of all confessional documents or their consent to them than it is due to their willingness to be bound by them and to submit to their authority overall" is an observation of this.

However, as a member of a Lutheran congregation, the individual also should be committed to grow in his understanding of Scripture and Lutheran doctrine. The pastor, as a shepherd of the congregation should be instrumental in helping the member to such Lutheran growth.

In today's computer age, a new Lutheran catechumen who has never even heard of the Book of Concord nor its Symbols has had a poor Lutheran catechism teacher. An adult Lutheran who has never even heard of the Book of Concord nor its Symbols has been poorly committed to grow in his understanding of Scripture and Lutheran doctrine.