Participation of Representatives of Different Confessions in Lord's Supper

[peter_speckhard]

Y'all owe me, once again. I am taking the advice offered privately by several participants and not engaging Mr. Erdner and his unique obsessions again. 

That's quite a racket you've got going there.

[Steverem]

Y'all owe me, once again. I am taking the advice offered privately by several participants and not engaging Mr. Erdner and his unique obsessions again.  They noted, and I agree, that his repetitive issues, raising questions already answered, do not make for progress in this particular discussion. As I noted a day or so ago, been down that road, it leads nowhere.

That word you keep using--non-engagement--I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable! 

[Scott6]

Scott, I was not trying to be argumentative. You said that I had not "taken account of all the possibilities". So I was asking what those possibilities were in your opinion. I thought you had additional possibilities to consider since you used the plural 'possibilities'.

Oh.  Nope -- I don't have others to offer, but that doesn't mean that they aren't there.  If I'm wrong re: Luther's semiotic analysis, I'd be willing to hear something more persuasive.

Based on your statement: "I DO mean a "joint" service that is intentionally billed as such.  The example being a "Joint UCC-Lutheran" service or a "Joint Baptist-Lutheran" service.  It is not the presence of the members but the identification of the confession." It seems to me that for Lutheran congregations to publicly include ecumenical partners (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.) in our services of Word and Sacrament would not endanger the validity of our Eucharist because they have the same basic understanding of the nature of the presence of Christ. For other partners (Reformed, Episcopalian, etc.) it would send the wrong message and be pointless anyway.

That sounds right to me, given our shared understandings of what is given and received and for what benefit in the Eucharist.  Of course, I think that other problems would be involved in such shared services, but the content of the Supper would not be one of them.

I was talking to a ELCA Pastor awhile back about Services of Word and Sacrament that included non-believers (Hindus and Buddhists) held in a Southern California ELCA church. He seemed to be saying that we were obligated to include non-believers because that is how God's grace is conveyed to us. Why, he asked, should we withhold the body and blood of Christ. I responded, what's the point. They aren't going to accept God's saving truth because we gave them a piece of bread and a sip of wine.

Nicely put.  Even more, they would be receiving the body and blood of Christ to their harm, engaging in a type of mockery of his sacrifice.

[Scott6]

It is said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. George sees the agreements as camels. You see horses. Waste of time arguing who needs a trip to the optometrist. However, based on some of Scott's earlier points, I've come to see them as camels also. If they reject one of the basic tenets of the faith (the real presence) they shouldn't (as a group, not individually) have altar fellowship with us.

"Camels."  I'll have to use that one sometime.

In your defense, I do seem to remember you posting the points of agreement that allowed the altar fellowship somewhere in this thread. I can't remember what you said or where to find it so it must not have been very compelling to me. That, however, does not negate the fact that you gave, what I consider to be, a legitimate explanation of the basis of the agreements.

I remember that, too.  Once he said that the agreements can become a "truth" for the ELCA, and at another time, he pointed out that the agreements couldn't be criticized from Scripture, the Confessions or Luther, thereby indicating that those things do not serve as their source.  Both of which are "legitimate explanation(s) of the basis of the agreements."  Whether they are actually reflective either of the agreements themselves or if agreements between churches should be formed in that manner are different questions.

[Scott6]

I share Mr. Erdner's concerns and believe these three assertions just cannot be reconciled in the light of day no matter how pretty the sophistry in the ecumenical documents on the Lord's Supper:

1. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in, with, and under the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

2. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are spiritually but not really present with the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.

3. The question of whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are really present in, with, and under the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is not an unimportant one.

Very clearly put re: what is given and received.  And the way these different views affect the interpretive context of the Supper is of great importance as well, in that they form the folks who believe differently such that the words actually take on different meanings, even having different referents.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Charles, I agree that it is insulting. 

Pr. Tibbetts,

I am not certain who is considered to be insulting at this point and who is considered to just be telling the truth. Tact is probably involved, and that is not one of my blessings.

In the vocabulary I have been taught to use, "insult" is a far richer word than many here seem to be using it.  So perhaps I should have added, "I agree it is insulting.  And we have earned that insult."  Unlike Charles, I took no offense at your insult.   The offense is ours, and perhaps if enough people -- inside and outside of the ELCA -- keep pointing out the theological vacuousness that has taken over our public discourse our leadership will begin to repent or, better yet, our Assemblies will stop electing and re-electing folks who have been undermining the proud legacy of our predecessor church bodies and demand better.

On the other hand, other estates of our nation suggest that our failing is one shared with the world we live in -- and of.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+

[Brian Stoffregen]

The ELCA does take a higher-critical approach to Scripture.

Yes, although some pastors don't.

It argues that what is recorded in the Bible cannot be trusted.

Absolutely not. The Bible is the Word of God. It is the power of God for the salvation of believers. The Bible will do what God intends it do. In matters of salvation it is absolutely trusted. However, it is not a history or science book. We don't rely on this book of faith to be  a book of history or a book of science.

This leads me to my second assertion.  The ELCA seems to be molded more by the sinful desires of the world than Scripture.  Please note the weasel word "seems". You must realize that I do sincerely believe that the Bible teaches against the ordination of women in its teaching of the order of creation. I do believe the Bible teaches abortion is sin as alll murder is sin. I do believe that the Bible condemns adulltery of all forms outside of the sanctified marriage of a man and a woman, and that includes homosexuality.

Those are your beliefs and you are entitled to them. Other people read the same Bible and come to different conclusions about its meaning.

[Team Hesse]

Other people read the same Bible and come to different conclusions about its meaning.

Which is why, I was told, one should never read or study the Bible in isolation.  One can get off on all sorts of tangents in doing so, reading what you want it to say and hearing what you already think you know, because one never knows who is whispering "interpretations" in your year, the Holy Spirit or some 'other' spirit... 
But when read and studied with others and with the church Fathers commentaries, etc., this is less likely to occur. 
Debbie

[Thomas Byers]

Schmucker was supposedly defeated in the 19th century but his program has had a way of coming back to life as Lutherans have pondered how to fit into the American religious establishment.  Eliminate the distinctives? thomas byers

[Brian Stoffregen]

When doubt is cast upon, say, Genesis being a historical account, the axe is not far from the tree of Jesus'  resurrection being dounted as a historical account.

We are apt to say that Genesis 1 & 2 were never meant to be historical accounts, and shouldn't be interpreted that way. There were no historians present when those events happened. There was no one to write down what happened, what was said, etc. There's a reason that Genesis 1-11 are called "pre-history". The accounts of Jesus' resurrection are written, in part, to be historical accounts. They are also written to convey truths and meanings beyond, "This is what happened back in history." For example, relating the story of the resurrection is meant to assure the people 50, 500, and 2000 years later that Jesus is alive.

Indeed, I have heard rumors -- which I would like to disbelieve--  that some in the ELCA have argued that the crucifixion is to be understood spiritually and not physically.  As I said, when any of the Bible is considered to be unreliable, then all of it becomes open to being considered unreliable.

I have never heard anyone suggest that there was not a literal crucifixion. There are some, most notably, Crossan, who is not Lutheran, who believes that Jesus' body, like all the other crucified bodies, was eaten by birds and wild dogs. I've not heard one Lutheran support that view, but I haven't heard every Lutheran scholar. I have heard Lutheran speakers refute that view -- as I have done in sermons and newsletter articles.

Without disputing the fact of the resurrection, I do point out all the differences in the biblical appearance stories. While there are a lot of similarities in biblical accounts of the passion and even of the empty tomb, there are no similar appearances stories in the gospels. There are no appearances in authentic Mark, but a promise that Jesus would appear in Galilee. Matthew records one appearance in Galilee. Luke records two appearance events, both around Jerusalem. John has an appearance to Mary, then two appearances a week apart in the locked room, then a fourth by the Sea of Tiberius. It seems clear to me that each Gospel writers tells the appearance stories to fit in with the theology or emphases of their whole writing. They are not writing as objective historians, but as committed believers and evangelists. They are proclaiming the gospel, not writing history. (Thus my analogy that the genre of gospel is similar to the genre of sermon.) This doesn't mean that their history is made up or faulty, but they pick and choose stories that were available to them and/or adapted -- told in their own way -- oral traditions about resurrection appearances that best proclaimed the theological truths that they are emphasizing. Their primary concern is to tell us about God (theo-logy) not history.

[hillwilliam]

... When doubt is cast upon, say, Genesis being a historical account, the axe is not far from the tree of Jesus'  resurrection being doubted as a historical account. Indeed, I have heard rumors -- which I would like to disbelieve--  that some in the ELCA have argued that the crucifixion is to be understood spiritually and not physically.  As I said, when any of the Bible is considered to be unreliable, then all of it becomes open to being considered unreliable.

... Which is why I belong to the LCMS because these conclusions which I believe Scripture teaches conform to what the LCMS believes, teaches, and confesses.

Mike

The problem with that Mike is that I am not a member of the LCMS for the same reasons that you are one. Both of us, having support for our beliefs from scripture, have some common ground that would allow us to reason together.

I am somewhat offended by your generalities concerning the theological position of the ELCA. Word Alone is made up of members of the ELCA and includes in their membership many Lutheran Theologians who are very traditional. They more accurately represent the official positions found in our founding documents than any revisionist pronouncements coming our of Chicago.

I agree with you that casting doubt on scripture can add to that slippery slope that threatens to send our society into the darkness. However, many things that you find supported by scripture, I see as in conflict with other passages and so have my doubts. Do you accept that there were prophetess' in Israel as the scriptures recount? If so why would the ordination of women not be acceptable?

We both consider ourselves to be grounded in scripture and yet see some things differently. Both of us, however, can be legitimately offended by arguments from those who manufacture biblical support where there is obviously no support possible.

[hillwilliam]

Mr. Hinton,

I apologize for offending you. I too often go beyond the perceptions and opinions which shape my decisions and act as if everyone else should make the same decisions.  It is a catch-22 of sorts in that if you believe that you are right about something, you think the opposing view is wrong and needs to only be shown their error.  If you don't believe you are right to start withm why even bother to persuade someone of something when you aren't persuded of it yourself.

I see prophetesses as fulfilling a separate office than priests and pastors. I know some -- perhaps including you -- doubt that God inspired anyone to write or preach anything, but I do believe that the Holy Spirit inspired prophets and prophetesses and spoke through them.  At the same time, women were not permitted to act as priests and then in the New Testament, St. Paul attests that women are to be silent in the church, not teaching or usurping authority over men according to the order of Creation.

I do not think in these last days in which God the Father has given us His revelation though His Son, Jesus Christ that He provides any new revelation beyond the inscripturated Word. Therefore, I believe the office of prophetess has become obsolete.

Mike

Mr. Hinton's my father. Call me Gary.

I can respect your beliefs about the ordination of women. They have scriptural support so are legitimate. The point I was trying to make is that the ELCA that you were so critical of is not the ELCA found in our Confession of Faith and in groups such as Lutheran CORE or WordAlone.

I am just as critical of the revisionists as many of the Missourians on this board so understand your frustration. For the time being, however, I am the loyal opposition. After August I may fulfill the same function in the LCMS.