Communion at Missouri Synod Lutheran

[J.L. Allen]

My family attends a Lutheran church (LCMS) in Alabama. It’s a solid church that preaches the Gospel boldly. Obviously, I respectfully disagree with several doctrinal issues, but I’m ultimately happy that my parents and sister are in a good church (especially my dad who I think is coming to the Lord). We will be attending with them on a family visit this summer. I’m thinking I’ll talk with their pastor about it, but I wanted to ask y’all here:

Should I participate in the Eucharist should it be taking place and I’m not barred from it by the pastor? I added a poll because that’s fun, and we need fun on Monday.

 

[Shanny01]

Unless I'm not mistaken, I'm almost certain anybody holding to a Reformed understanding would be barred from communion at any confessional Lutheran church (LCMS, WELS, ELS, AALC, etc.). I wouldn't partake of it especially on account of the faulty Christology undergirding their view of real presence. I wouldn't want to give parishioners there an indication I support their views on Christ and the relation of his who natures.

 

[Edward]

Should I participate in the Eucharist should it be taking place and I’m not barred from it by the pastor?

No, you shouldn't out of respect to them, even if the pastor doesn't properly fence the table. I've visited a couple of LCMS with friends, and one made it very clear that the communion was closed. The other was more evangelical in outlook, but I also refrained there out of respect for them and their views.

Your theological life looks a little messy, and it isn't clear what your views are on the sacraments. But they probably don't match up with the Lutherans.

I don't know how much you have studied the Lutheran sacraments, but they don't dump the leftovers in the garbage can, the leftover wine must be properly disposed of.

 

[J.L. Allen]

No, you shouldn't out of respect to them, even if the pastor doesn't properly fence the table. I've visited a couple of LCMS with friends, and one made it very clear that the communion was closed. The other was more evangelical in outlook, but I also refrained there out of respect for them and their views.

Your theological life looks a little messy, and it isn't clear what your views are on the sacraments. But they probably don't match up with the Lutherans.

I don't know how much you have studied the Lutheran sacraments, but they don't dump the leftovers in the garbage can, the leftover wine must be properly disposed of.

I think their pastor is more open to it. I participated a number of years ago (my family only in the last few years have been attending there and I’ve been out of the house for a long time. I didn’t grow up Lutheran in the slightest) when I didn’t really understand much of anything regarding their theology. I think you’re right in not doing it out of respect now that I’m aware.

I’d appreciate clarification on how my theological life is messy. I would like to know how I can tidy things up.

As far as the sacraments, I’ve recently fully embraced the covenant baptism view and was convinced much earlier of the reformed view of the Lord’s Table. I’m not sure I ever actually bought into idea of a purely memorial view nor the Roman or Lutheran views.

 

[Robert K]

No, you shouldn't out of respect to them, even if the pastor doesn't properly fence the table.

Agreed. My experience is that they want you to be a member to take communion, even if they say something vague about sharing the same beliefs (without saying how specific those beliefs are). I didn't know what to do and I was politely told to sit down by my coworker whose baby's baptism I had come to see.
Edit: My experience was with a WELS church.

 

[Jack K]

If you were in Germany in the 1500s, attending a worship service led by Luther, would you partake in the Supper with that congregation or would you decline because Luther's teaching regarding the Supper included errors? I think that if I were allowed, I would partake with gladness, because despite the errors the gospel is proclaimed in that church and in that Supper. And to decline suggests the error is so grievous that you consider those in that church not worthy to be considered your brothers in Christ (1 Corinthians 5:11-13).

Of course, a Missouri Synod Lutheran congregation today is not exactly the same thing. And certainly if it is church or denominational policy that partakers be members or agree with Lutheran-specific views of the Supper, then proper respect demands we sit it out.

But you ask if you should partake if allowed. I say the gospel is not lost in original Lutheran teaching, nor is Christ denied, so I think we could commune with gospel-believing Lutherans if they are willing to commune with us.

 

[Pergamum]

Do you believe that Christ is in, with, and under the bread?

 

[J.L. Allen]

Do you believe that Christ is in, with, and under the bread?

Nope.

 

[Edward]

I’d appreciate clarification on how my theological life is messy. I would like to know how I can tidy things up.

You go to a broadly evangelical school, attend a Baptist church and go to vespers at a Presbyterian church. I'd call that theologically messy. Cleaning up would consist of sorting out how you view baptism, and the Lords Supper, and church government, and perhaps worship, and then putting all your eggs in one basket.

 

[J.L. Allen]

You go to a broadly evangelical school, attend a Baptist church and go to vespers at a Presbyterian church. I'd call that theologically messy. Cleaning up would consist of sorting out how you view baptism, and the Lords Supper, and church government, and perhaps worship, and then putting all your eggs in one basket.

I’ll be finished with Moody, Lord willing, by the close of 2020. My attending the baptist/Acts29 church is something I’m prayerfully considering. Moving needs to be done with care and consideration. I’m fully committed to the Reformed view of the sacraments as well as polity. Obviously, the last jump would be attending such a church. Worship is something where I want to learn more regarding EP vs otherwise.

 

[Pergamum]

Nope.

I could not partake if their very view of the Sacraments was errant like this.

 

[hammondjones]

Isn't there a (possibly/likely apocryphal) Luther quote on the order of "I'd take Communion from the Devil's steaming claw"? I take communion my parents' Baptist church that calls it an ordinance, and is strictly memorialist. The Supper is what it is despite what a church teaches. As long as the gospel is preached, I would not let theology get in the way.

However, I'd likely not participate in the LCMS Communion since I am aware of their desire to have closed communion (regardless of whether or not a particular pastor doesn't care). Even though I regret that they feel that way, I respect their decision to fence the table in their own way.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'd take communion at any true church. There's no sense in promoting schism. I would not take it at a false church - Papist, Liberal, Rampantly Pelagian, etc

 

[chuckd]

I could not partake if their very view of the Sacraments was errant like this.

How is this different than requiring someone to be rebaptized because someone's views weren't correct during the first baptism? It's not like Lutheran's views on the supper actually make Christ in, with, and under the bread.

 

[Charles Johnson]

How is this different than requiring someone to be rebaptized because someone's views weren't correct during the first baptism? It's not like Lutheran's views on the supper actually make Christ in, with, and under the bread.

Exactly. Let's not repeat the error of the Donatists.

 

[Pergamum]

How is this different than requiring someone to be rebaptized because someone's views weren't correct during the first baptism? It's not like Lutheran's views on the supper actually make Christ in, with, and under the bread.

I would require real baptism of a person if their previous sprinkling was invalid. And I would abstain from celebrating communion with any church believing in transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

 

[chuckd]

I would require real baptism of a person if their previous sprinkling was invalid. And I would abstain from celebrating communion with any church believing in transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what makes a baptism invalid?

 

[Pergamum]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what makes a baptism invalid?

This is not a baptism thread. We've talked that issue to death here.

 

[TheOldCourse]

I'd take communion at any true church. There's no sense in promoting schism. I would not take it at a false church - Papist, Liberal, Rampantly Pelagian, etc

I can understand both sides. The Reformed objection to the Papal Mass is not based upon the status of the church that administered it, rather it is the idolatry of the Mass itself. Calvin wrote to French Protestants that, while they may freely attend a Papist church for other services so long as they are not seen as countenancing the errors of Rome, they may by no means participate in the Mass because of its gross idolatry. We all recognize that the LCMS is a true church that preaches the Gospel--if not it wouldn't be a question of participating in the Lord's Supper but even attending the service at all. The question is how closely does the Lutheran error adhere to the Roman one in the rite in particular?

Consubstantiation is a theological error, but does it beget a practical idolatry in the act, like transubstantiation does? If the latter, then we cannot participate in it. Believing this does not make one schismatic or Donatist. It doesn't unchurch the Lutherans any more than my not singing uninspired hymns unchurches a Presbyterian congregation. It doesn't any more than a strict fencing congregation not allowing a visitor to partake un-Christians the visitor. I'm not familiar enough with LCMS practice to give an informed opinion. I understand consubstantiation, but is there worship/adoration of the elements as if Christ were "in" them? And if not, does it then involve you in a third commandment violation like a vain image of Christ?

 

[Pergamum]

I can understand both sides. The Reformed objection to the Papal Mass is not based upon the status of the church that administered it, rather it is the idolatry of the Mass itself. Calvin wrote to French Protestants that, while they may freely attend a Papist church for other services so long as they are not seen as countenancing the errors of Rome, they may by no means participate in the Mass because of its gross idolatry. We all recognize that the LCMS is a true church that preaches the Gospel--if not it wouldn't be a question of participating in the Lord's Supper but even attending the service at all. The question is how closely does the Lutheran error adhere to the Roman one in the rite in particular?

Consubstantiation is a theological error, but does it beget a practical idolatry in the act, like transubstantiation does? If the latter, then we cannot participate in it. Believing this does not make one schismatic or Donatist. It doesn't unchurch the Lutherans any more than my not singing uninspired hymns unchurches a Presbyterian congregation. It doesn't any more than a strict fencing congregation not allowing a visitor to partake un-Christians the visitor. I'm not familiar enough with LCMS practice to give an informed opinion. I understand consubstantiation, but is there worship/adoration of the elements as if Christ were "in" them? And if not, does it then involve you in a third commandment violation like a vain image of Christ?

Consubstantiation seems to require the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's physical body, which is a Trinitarian error (it seems to come very close to monophysitism, the Son's humanity being absorbed by His deity).

 

[ZackF]

Consubstantiation seems to require the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's physical body, which is a Trinitarian error (it seems to come very close to monophysitism, the Son's humanity being absorbed by His deity).

Lutherans would say “real” rather “physical.”

 

[Pergamum]

Lutherans would say “real” rather “physical.”

Yes, every side adopts a semantical position which stengthens their argument. But the real presence is a physical one, is it not?

 

[ZackF]

Yes, every side adopts a semantical position which stengthens their argument. But the real presence is a physical one, is it not?

No because even many Reformed claim a real presence. Indeed though there are semantic games played. Even RCs often shy away from physical and use words like real and truly.

 

[Parakaleo]

This discussion reminds me of another that took place in a Facebook group. I was advocating non-observance of the Lord's Supper wherever grape juice is used instead of wine, arguing that knowing, active participation when there's any hint of idolatry taking place is accord with that idolatry. Someone asked if I would then abstain if the cup used for the wine was overly ornate? I said no, since I would not know whether this was idolatrous on the part of whoever selected the cup. As a follow up, I asked him if he would partake if the cup had a picture of Christ on it? Didn't get an answer, but I hope it would be no.

I would respectfully disagree with Jack on this. Paul was astonished that believers in Corinth thought they could have a level of fellowship with devils and chow down on meat sacrificed to idols when it was known or pointed out that idolatry (for some) was also on the table. My advice? Adopt a zero-tolerance policy on idolatry and "anywise approving" of it (WLC Question 109) through knowing, active participation.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

After some consideration, I have decided to vote "no" in this poll. While partaking in the imperfect observance of the Lord's Supper in a Reformed church does not imply that you give approval to those imperfections or irregularities (for instance, if your minister or elders wrongly admit people to the Lord's Table), observing the Eucharist in a Lutheran church is not in the same ballpark.

The Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper does not merely amount to an error in the administration of the sacrament, but it represents a fundamentally different view of the ordinance to the Reformed view. Indeed, the error of the Lutherans is so extreme that it even implies a heretical view of Christology. (See this post from John Davenant on the heterodoxy of Lutheran Christology for more.) Given that the Lutherans' Eucharistic theology is predicated on a heterodox approach to Christology, I do not believe that you can partake of communion in a Lutheran church without giving countenance to erroneous Christology.

 

[earl40]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what makes a baptism invalid?

If they used milk instead of water? Or how about communion? Grape juice instead of wine? OK off subject, but in my opinion real questions of what elements are valid.

 

[Pilgrim]

The one time I visited a LCMS congregation, I did not partake, knowing their views on the sacrament as well as the LCMS practice that would bar me. However, no fencing of the table was done, to my recollection. I don't know if there is a typical statement made in LCMS congregations about who may partake.

To my recollection there is no statement made in the RC mass but its widely understood (or used to be) that it is for Catholics only. But with Protestant churches, you'd think it would be necessary since the average person seems to thnk its OK to participate anywhere it is celebrated. I've also been to some Landmark Baptist churches that practice close or closed communion where they didn't fence the table either, at least with regard to any statement about church membership as a prerequisite. I think some churches may get visitors so seldom (especially those from outside their tradition) that maybe they haven't thought about what they should be saying.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Edward]

To my recollection there is no statement made in the RC mass but its widely understood (or used to be) that it is for Catholics only.

While I doubt many of the folks here on PB would find themselves at a RC Mass, a friend who is an Episcopalian did tell me the proper approach for a non Catholic. When you get to the Priest or Deacon, cross your arms over your chest. That signals him that you are not to receive the elements for some reason. He will then utter a brief blessing and you move back to your seat.

I don't know if the Lutherans have a similar practice; what I've seen there is that you stay at your pew, moving as necessary to let the others pass.

 

[J.L. Allen]

While I doubt many of the folks here on PB would find themselves at a RC Mass, a friend who is an Episcopalian did tell me the proper approach for a non Catholic. When you get to the Priest or Deacon, cross your arms over your chest. That signals him that you are not to receive the elements for some reason. He will then utter a brief blessing and you move back to your seat.

I don't know if the Lutherans have a similar practice; what I've seen there is that you stay at your pew, moving as necessary to let the others pass.

At the church I would attend on this visit, that’s what I’ve seen. They don’t fence the table though. This was voluntarily done.

I should say, before I became reformed, I did partake of the elements.

 

[ZackF]

I wouldn’t take communion at Lutheran church. Though they vociferously deny the service as any kind of sacrifice, their language describing communion much close to RCism. It’s not correct. Lutheran said himself, he’d rather drink blood with papists than wine with the sacramentarians (Zwinglians).