As the TIME Magazine article in response to the Pew report closes with:
The survey's biggest challenge is to the theologians and pastors who will have to reconcile their flocks' acceptance of a new, polyglot heaven with the strict admission criteria to the gated community that preceded it.
Personally, I don't have much of an issue with this, after all, I want people who come from a variety of background approaches and life to gather each week to hear what Jesus has to say. In other words, I don't think the gate to the entry to the church should have been there in the first place.
But in Paul's letter to the 1st Corinthians, he writes, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (11:26). When we consider this in light of Paul's broader work, we get the idea that, by "Lord's death", he's referring to the redemptive work of Jesus on the cross. In the language of my last post, he's talking about the second level, stuff that, according to Pew, most of us ignore.
So, that brings up an interesting question. If eating the body and blood of Christ involves a proclamation of the second level, and according to the recent Pew report most who bear the title Christians don't really view it as a second level faith, who should be coming to the table?
I should pause here and say that I belong to a faith tradition that adheres to closed communion, a practice rooted in the traditions of the Early Church where, following the Scripture reading and sermon, those who were not Christian or were preparing for baptism were dismissed, the doors were closed, and the service continued with the Lord's Supper. This is because we believe that, in a way we can't explain, in the bread and wine we physically receive the body and blood of Christ, the forgiveness of sins, and the strength to live out our Christian life.
Well, in seminary, we were told that the easiest way to determine who should come to the table would be those who profess membership to our denomination (which, dogmatically speaking, is very second level). The idea was that they linked themselves to that body and therefore, in addition to a public linking to a second level confession, they should have been taught that faith as well. However, according to the details in the Pew report, 78% of LCMS Lutherans think multiple religions will bring you to the same destination, which means they aren't holding to a second level confession. (thanks Lutheran Kantor). It seems that somebody simply saying, "I go here." in no way means, "I believe this."
So, how should a pastor respond? Here's my solution, tomorrow, I'm going to do some teaching right before communion. I'm going to talk about the Pew report, the idea of the second level, and invite people to the Lord's Table who wish to "proclaim the Lord's death." I'll also give people permission to stay in their seats if they aren't comfortable making that profession yet. I wonder if anyone will stay seated?



You bring up some great points. This recalls a conversation I had with a friend of mine at college, who is now also a pastor, that the Lord's Supper/Communion is in a sense an Altar Call. That we are proclaiming something with Communion. Let us know how it goes this weekend.
Stinking 5th Sundays and non-weekly communion.
That's just too funny. Oh those 5th Sundays, they are like the Charlie Browns of Church.
Hey Joe,
Yeah, given the complexities of "confession" where I serve, I find it is easier to do a weekly "altar call" like you and Ryan are talking about here. But I also take some of Kloha's advice to create a little bit of a fog around what is going on, deliberately.
Making things clear right before the sacrament is necessary, but I've found that muddying it just enough keeps some people away. I say things like "if you're partake of Christ's Body and Blood with us, you're joining our community." To people who don't buy into the theology here don't want to "join in the community" unless they know a little bit more about it first. I've had a lot of chances to explain things just because of that line.
in Christ,
jW
One of the things I'd like to do is figure out a way to take whatever was preached on that Sunday and link it to communion on a regular basis ... sort of the muddying that you're talking about. Of course, this hasn't been a big deal at Genesis because I know everybody and where they're at, but when preaching at Christ (which I've been doing regularly for about 6 months now), there is a greater need to do some muddying.
Hey Joe...
I'm not really sure this gets to what you're talking about here...my mind is kind of muddy. However, one thing that I do at University is that right after the Words of Institution, I work one of the Scripture readings (usually what I've preached on) into the "acclamation" or whatever the correct liturgical term is afterwards. So instead of saying "The peace of the Lord be with you," this Sunday I said, (not a verbatim quote) "When Peter recognized the reality of what had happened, he said, "Now I am sure the Lord has rescued me." and the people responded "When we realize the Body and Blood given for us, we are sure the Lord has rescued us."
Then I always do a brief explanation of what communion is before we invite people up (right after the Lamb of God). This Sunday went something like "When you realize that Jesus' Body and Blood are truly here: in, with, and under the bread and the wine, your legacy becomes joined with His (we were talking about legacies) and with ours through Him." Again, not a verbatim quote...and I'm not sure that even helps, but if it does, glory to God.
in Christ,
jW
Beautiful comments there J. Thanks, I like the way you're weaving all that together and encouraging people to think about what's going on.
I like that J. I think the liturgy and everything should tie into things. I do like that 'muddiness'; at my church we basically don't have an official 'closed communion' policy; partly because of the post-denominationalism that we are living in and because we are so large that we don't know where everyone is at. Yet, I've seen some very bad practices at my church because we're afraid to address the issue. I like that muddying because I think it will fit best at our church. I've been trying to implement something like it...like Luther's Admonition before the Lord's Supper or some similar things found in Creative Worship. Yet, it's hard to get some of the other staff on board with the idea.
Thanks Ryan and Joe,
Yeah...my setting and context make it a very muddy situation to begin with. We are the only Lutheran campus ministry at FSU. Because of that, we have people who come from all sorts of Lutheran backgrounds (although the WELS people go to the local WELS church if they go anywhere).
Because of that, I can't front LCMS membership as the "de-facto" statement of faith. Many of the students who are LCMS have no idea what the LCMS believes, and those from the ELCA see any statement that fronts LCMS membership as an affront. Because of that, I have to front the beliefs of our local parish/community and make those abundantly clear, but make things muddy enough so that people feel comfortable with (if not compelled to) opt out of communion until they get some more information.
It sounds like you may have some similar concerns. This "postdenominationalism" might make for some interesting Swim fodder. One other thing, while I'm exercising my bravado in recommending things, that I have been approached with as a question lately is an indepth look at exorcisms/demonology/"spiritual warfare".
in Christ,
jW
Hum, that one on postdenominationalism might tie in well with our question about the right time to leave a church.