hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (06/26/91)
This is a postscript to my discussion with David Wagner. I though it was better to do this as myself than as a moderatorial comment. I try to avoid foaming at the mouth when I'm moderating. I'm not sure I can do so here. I would not want people to think that I don't care about doctrine, or that I believe churches should not care what their leaders teach. However I am somewhat more willing to tolerate disagreement than David is. First, as I read the NT passages about false teaching, they are directed primarily against teachers, not normal members. I certainly support churches watching what pastors and other teachers teach. I understand that the Lutheran Church is traditionally a confessional church, and I have no problem at all with it requiring pastors and teachers to subscribe to the Augsburg Confession or something similar. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is not quite as confessional, and allows somewhat more latitude in doctrine. We don't require subscription to any specific creed, so things are up to the presbyteries. But I attend one of the most liberal presbyteries, and even in ours, pastors accept roughly the Apostles or Nicene creeds, understand Christ as truly God and man (i.e roughly Chalcedon), and show some signs of a Reformed perspective. (I say roughly because now and then someone will have qualms about a specific clause. The Virgin Birth is a typical one; Christ's descent into hell another.) I'm not sure we are as careful in reviewing the beliefs of Sunday School teachers, but I would certainly support doing so. Our church has avoided teachers whose views appear to be non-standard (at least for work with children and youth -- our adult class sometimes has controversial presentations). Where I have problems with doctrinal standards is in ordinary worship. My basic perspective is that the Church is Christ's body, not ours. Doctrine is important, and we should do everything that we can to encourage competent doctrine. But anyone who has accepted Christ as Lord and savior is my brother or sister in Christ, and I cannot conceive of refusing to worship with them because I think they've gotten something wrong. The PC(USA) accepts just about any Christian as a member. Our primary doctrinal standard for members is that they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We exercise doctrinal controls where I think it matters (and is called for in the NT), which is on teaching. 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.
tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.26.02.54.43.1991.23593@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >What particularly angers me (as most readers surely know by now) is >closed communion. ... Let me speak from the perspective of one who belongs to a presbyterian denomination that is somewhat more confessional than OFM's denomination. Most of our congregations observe a modified version of closed communion (if by closed you mean closed to non-members of the local congregation). The formula generally used in the PCA is to welcome to the communion table "members in good standing of an evangelical church, or those who have previously met with the session." I believe this solves the concerns of the moderator, as well as the concerns of those like myself who worry about the "discerning the Lord's body" matter. When the session meets with someone either for membership or to invite them to the communion table, we would expect to hear an understanding of the Christian faith along the lines of the Apostles Creed, i.e., that they would understand that Jesus Christ died for the remission of their sins, and that they are trusting in Him for their salvation, not in their own good works. Some folks would object to our use of the term "evangelical church." We believe it is entirely consistent with the tradition of reformed and presbyterian denominations. We do not apologize for the fact that we are not Roman Catholics or eastern Orthodox. Our tradition of sola scriptura means we cannot in good conscience recognize those denominations as authentic "evangelical" churches. By offering to folks who come in from one of these churches the opportunity to meet with the session, we are recognizing that there may be genuine Christians who could righty discern the Lord's body. -- Tom Albrecht
math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.26.02.54.43.1991.23593@athos.rutgers.edu>, 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.
lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au (James Hale) (06/27/91)
In article <Jun.26.02.54.43.1991.23593@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: > [intro deleted] > > 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. But no action can! To see an action of another (be it an individual, group or organisation) as offensive and leave it at that is to accept that they are what they do. But we know that they are our brothers in Christ, and, regardless of their actions or perceived ideas, will remain our brothers in Christ. The action you have described, does indeed seem sad. And it is easy for us to rise up in anger, but what would Christ have us do? Jesus was excluded by the mob but he did not share that view. He saw them as his brothers and asked their forgiveness. Let us not share the perception that one can be excluded from communion with Christ, for we know that this is not possible UNLESS we choose it. Let us not culture our anger, which only serves to maintain that exclusion and make it real in our mind as well as theirs. No matter how beautiful or otherwise a doctrine is, it is still just a doctrine still just something that we have created. While its use brings us closer to the Father's Will, it is used in Love. While its use denies the Father by denying the oneness of His Children, it is an instrument of fear. His response to fear is to to dispel it with His Love. We need to recognise that that fear is a call for love. It is not just the *victim* that needs our help, it is the *victimiser*. To deny one is to deny both. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ James Hale Lincoln School of Health Sciences Computing Unit La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- My sinless brother is my guide to peace. | Lesson 351 My sinful brother is my guide to pain. | Workbook P470 And which I choose to see I will behold. | _____________________________________________________________________________
conan@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (07/01/91)
In article <Jun.26.02.54.43.1991.23593@athos.rutgers.edu> 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. Let me take a stab at this question from another perspective. As most of you are aware, the Roman Catholic Church practices closed communion. (There are deviations from this by individual pastors, but these are exceptions to the rule.) Over and above the question of "discerning the body" OFM mentions above, there is the question of unity. Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a sign and a source of our unity. Further, Catholics believe that to open communion up to those christians we are _not_ fully united with is to contrary to the nature of the sacrament. It has been argued (especially strongly by an Episcopalean friend of mine) that Catholics are preventing unity by practicing closed communion. However, the Church feels that opening up communion without healing the deeper underlying divisions which separate us, is to put "the cart before the horse". Union at the table of the Lord will mark the healing of the divisions between christians--it will not be the cause of it. I realize that to some this will sound chauvanist. Therefore, let me repeat (or at least paraphrase) the American bishops' instruction on communion--let us all pray fervently for the restoration of unity in the Body of Christ. Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO [I don't understand. I realize the unity of the body of Christ is imperfect. It seems appropriate to me for the sacrament to symbolize something that won't be complete until we are finally united in heaven. If that doesn't seem appropriate to you, then maybe you should abstain from the sacrament completely, and simply keep an empty cup on the communion table as a sign of hope that we will eventually be united in Christ. To believe that the body is sufficiently broken that we can't join other Christians in the sacrament, but continue to practice it within our own denominations, seems to be turning the sacrament into a symbol of the unity of our denomination, rather than of the body of Christ. --clh]
harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) (07/01/91)
In article <Jun.26.02.54.43.1991.23593@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >Where I have problems with doctrinal standards is in ordinary worship. >My basic perspective is that the Church is Christ's body, not ours. >Doctrine is important, and we should do everything that we can to >encourage competent doctrine. But anyone who has accepted Christ as >Lord and savior is my brother or sister in Christ, and I cannot >conceive of refusing to worship with them because I think they've >gotten something wrong. The PC(USA) accepts just about any Christian >as a member. Our primary doctrinal standard for members is that they >accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We exercise doctrinal >controls where I think it matters (and is called for in the NT), which >is on teaching. One thing we need to remember is that doctrine is for our benefit, not God's. Doctrine is a model of God and His universe, intended for human consumption; God is the reality on which doctrine is based. Of course, being human, we are limited in our understanding of God, and being individuals, our relationships with God are not all the same. Therefore, the ways in which people know (and describe) God are not always identical. Rather than constantly try to correct a brother's (or another denomination's) doctrine, we should first try to understand him and what his terminology means, and see if perhaps he is talking about the same God after all. The bottom line is not a body of beliefs, or the way in which these beliefs are expressed, but the reality behind them: the God whom we worship. Toward Unity in the Body of Christ, ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel A. Harling uunet!pictel!harling PictureTel, Inc. Rockport, MA Peabody, MA Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of PictureTel, Inc.; they are MINE, ALL MINE! (So there.) ---- === ====
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (07/01/91)
Good point. Amended article follows: ------ Subject: Re: doctrinal standards >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.) I think I have pointed out before that the Episcopal Church has taken an open communion position. Given the numbers of Roman Catholics whose theology is wildly at variance from that promulgated from Rome, the "protection" of closed communion becomes ever more laughable-- or reprehensible, depending upon your viewpoint. I'd be willing to bet that the congregation at your typical anglo-catholic eucharist hews to the Roman line more closely than those at the RC church down the block. And the difference in the official theology is so tiny. The difference between (anglican at least) Real Presence and consubstantiation and transsubstantiation is not worth fighting over; it does not result in any significant differences in eucharistic piety or practice. If I may be so blunt, closed communion is really about pride. Closed communion is the province of the pharisee in the temple, not the publican. It says that those others over there, they are so much worse sinners than we are, we who have the One True Doctrine. If Jesus can share table with Zacchaeus, so can we. One of the repellent things about latter-day american christianity is how we feel so compelled to drive others away. The arch-Roman Catholic condescends to his protestant in-laws. The hyper-liberal anglican is quite willing to rend the church and drive out all those who will not subscribe to his political ideology. The myriad baptist-polity groups are all busily condemning one another. THe SBC is in the midst of a power struggle. Is this charity? NO. Just goes to prove that Dorothy Sayers was right about the church. -- C. Wingate + "How blest are they who have not seen, + and yet whose faith has constant been, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + for they eternal life shall win. tove!mangoe + Alleluia!"