Communion, or the Lord's Supper, or The Eucharist

[darinhouston]

Thomas, the closed communion makes sense if one believes that it is the means that the grace of God's salvation is provided, and that only the clergy can distribute that grace. However, when the provision of the means of grace is limited to the clergy, do you not accept that three things are almost certain to happen? (1) corruption in the power afforded the clergy; (2) a tendency in those receiving it to care more about what the clergy think about them than their relationship with and to Christ; and (3) a reliance more on the Lord's table than on a daily and moment by moment interest in walking in and not grieving the Holy Spirit?

[thomas]

Thomas, the closed communion makes sense if one believes that it is the means that the grace of God's salvation is provided, and that only the clergy can distribute that grace. However, when the provision of the means of grace is limited to the clergy, do you not accept that three things are almost certain to happen? (1) corruption in the power afforded the clergy;

No

(2) a tendency in those receiving it to care more about what the clergy think about them than their relationship with and to Christ; and

No , as everyone is aware that the Grace comes from God and not the clergy , and clegy can always be replaced. Lutheran Pastors are held in fairly high esteem but they are regarded as employees of the congregation , and not to be trusted with the money. While Catholic clergy are generaly held in low esteem especially here where it is not considered macho to be celebate.

(3) a reliance more on the Lord's table than on a daily and moment by moment interest in walking in and not grieving the Holy Spirit?

Yes , it's seen as a part of the walk with Christ. In sacrementalism Grace is seen as coming from a much wider variety of sources than the more limited way in which a non-sacrementalist would. A different world view , or a different type of walk, if I may.

[Homer]

I do not understand why anyone would think that a weekly communion should cause it to lose significance, any more than praying often. And what about all the singing done in church? How much is said in scripture about singing? Yet it may amount to half or more of the service. Could prayer and singing be more popular because they are about us, what we like and what we want?

Thomas wrote:

For the past few years I've been in a church that practices Closed Communion. There is a requirement for classes , although that has dropped to 6 months. You must also be a member of the denomination. Some limit it to members in good standing in the congregation.The members know the doctrine and know to self-examine. The result is that Communion is more highly valued.

Where is it found in the scriptures that the apostles, or the first Christians needed to be trained before they could take communion? What is it they needed to know that could not be grasped in one sermon? They learned on the day of Pentecost all they needed to know to be saved, from one sermon by Peter. They were added to the body by God. When you are in Christ, IMO, you are ready for communion. Christianity is a simple faith.

As far as "examine yourself" goes, it is just that, not someone else examine you.

Communion apparently became, during the medievel period, a time of morose focus on self and what a wretched person you are rather than a joint participation in a joyful remembrance and thanksgiving for what Jesus did and will do for those who are His. The words in Acts 2 describe the early Christian gatherings as full of exuberant joy and thankfulness. And they seem to have practiced communion at least every Sunday, if not every day. But then they did not yet know that in church they could be the audience for a concert.

Hi Danny; you wrote:

Everyone brought something to the meal as an intentional symbol of how everyone brings different gifts, ministries, insights, experiences, etc., to the gathering of Christ's church, for the nourishment of all

Doesn't this make the memorial about the people, and what they do, rather than Christ and what He did?

[Michelle]

I find it interesting that everyone seems to think that the way they and their church do communion makes for a moving, meaningful, and transcendent experience, while believing that the way others do it would make the Lord's Supper seem wooden, ritualistic, and mundane. Perhaps the forms, words, and, especially, the frequency are less important than what the participant brings to it and what he goes away with?

[thomas]

I find it interesting that everyone seems to think that the way they and their church do communion makes for a moving, meaningful, and transcendent experience, while believing that the way others do it would make the Lord's Supper seem wooden, ritualistic, and mundane. Perhaps the forms, words, and, especially, the frequency are less important than what the participant brings to it and what he goes away with?

You put it very well.

Where is it found in the scriptures that the apostles, or the first Christians needed to be trained before they could take communion? What is it they needed to know that could not be grasped in one sermon? They learned on the day of Pentecost all they needed to know to be saved, from one sermon by Peter. They were added to the body by God. When you are in Christ, IMO, you are ready for communion. Christianity is a simple faith.

As far as "examine yourself" goes, it is just that, not someone else examine you.

I think the practice can be defended in that we are commanded to teach Christ's commandments , Matt. 28:20 and that knowledge of them is neccesary to self-examine. And at least a bit about the communion to know if you are worthy.
Even if not in the Bible directly , it does not violate the Bible , and as such would fall under the catagory of adiaphora. That is , a point of tradition and Christian Freedom that is determined by the individual congregation. Some , none , or a lot , it's up to them.

Thomas

[darinhouston]

I find it interesting that everyone seems to think that the way they and their church do communion makes for a moving, meaningful, and transcendent experience, while believing that the way others do it would make the Lord's Supper seem wooden, ritualistic, and mundane. Perhaps the forms, words, and, especially, the frequency are less important than what the participant brings to it and what he goes away with?

I have to say this isn't what guides my belief -- I actually don't like the way my church does the Lord's Supper, but I make sure I use it as an opportunity for "communion." I would prefer a form that isn't practiced in most institutional churches.

[darinhouston]

Even if not in the Bible directly , it does not violate the Bible , and as such would fall under the catagory of adiaphora. That is , a point of tradition and Christian Freedom that is determined by the individual congregation. Some , none , or a lot , it's up to them.

I don't think this would comport with the RCC doctrines on the matter.

[Michelle]

I have to say this isn't what guides my belief -- I actually don't like the way my church does the Lord's Supper, but I make sure I use it as an opportunity for "communion." I would prefer a form that isn't practiced in most institutional churches.

I would love to hear what you would prefer. I'm truly interested and have no other objective than to read what your thoughts are.

[thomas]

Even if not in the Bible directly , it does not violate the Bible , and as such would fall under the catagory of adiaphora. That is , a point of tradition and Christian Freedom that is determined by the individual congregation. Some , none , or a lot , it's up to them.

I don't think this would comport with the RCC doctrines on the matter.

It's Lutheran , but it's such a good concept that it's a shame so few people follow it.

[Homer]

Hi Thomas,

You wrote:

And at least a bit about the communion to know if you are worthy.

IMO none of us are "worthy" He is the worthy one. Our worthiness comes from being in Him.

I am reminded of the stern Presbyterian pastor of a church on an Island off the coast of Scotland. During communion he observed a young lady who refused the elements when offered to her while she sat there silently weeping. The pastor took the elements back to her and said "here lassie, they are for sinners".