Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bellcore!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: doctrinal standards Message-ID: Date: 27 Jun 91 06:55:56 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 75 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: > >What particularly angers me (as most readers surely know by now) is >closed communion. (I'm speaking of closing communion for doctrinal >reasons. I don't want to get into church discipline here.) Communion >is the symbol of our unity in Christ. It is *his* table. It is the >last place we should be trying to do doctrinal quality control. I do >understand about "discerning the body". Certainly anyone who >participates in communion should understand that they are >participating in an act where Christ is expected to be present. But I >can't accept requiring a specific theory of Christ's presence. >Fortunately God is presumably willing to forgive offenses here. But >it's hard for me to conceive of a more offensive action than trying to >keep a fellow Christian from Christ's table. I agree that Communion is, among other things, the most intimate symbol of the unity of the church. By admitting someone to Communion we express our unity of faith with him. By barring someone from our communion we do not necessarily judge his faith; he can take communion in his own church, with which, we charitably presume, he is in confessional agreement. We simply say that there are problems that we need to work out before we can express unity with him. Do we bar the way to heaven? No. Is a christian required to take the sacrament every time and place that he is present and it is offered? That would be legalistic. It is very difficult to practice this without being misunderstood. I might add, however, that, say, 100 years ago, when the practice of 'close communion' (as we call it) was much more widespread, it caused few problems. Used properly, it can be an opportunity for Christians witness. The opposite practice, I think, causes more problems. If a guest comes to church and just takes communion without knowing what it is about, his conscience might condemn him when (or if) he finally learns what the Bible teaches about this. I have been told that (at least in some place and time) the early church practiced an extreme form of close communion. After the regular worship service was over, all the guests, non-members, etc. were ushered out, the doors closed, and then the members received the Lord's Supper. This spills over into the doctrine of 'what is the church?' The church is the body of true believers in Christ. The church is invisible; only God knows our hearts. The church is present wherever the means of grace are being used--Word and Sacrament, for God says, "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." --Isaiah 55:10,11. Yet we recognize faith (and the church) on the basis of someone's confession. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "The Church shall never perish! Her dear Lord, to defend, To guide, sustain, and cherish, Is with her to the end. Tho' there be those that hate her, False sons within her pale, Against both foe and traitor She ever shall prevail." --"The Church's One Foundation." --Samuel J. Stone, 1866. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.