Thursday, August 11, 2005

ELCA Resolution passes by 94%!

No, not the homosexuality one.

This was the agreement for "Interim Eucharistic Sharing" with the United Methodist Church.

As reported here
, NO ONE VERBALLY OPPOSED THIS MOTION! I suppose this illustrates in another way the great divide between the ELCA and LCMS. While Missouri struggles with its understanding and application of Church Fellowship issues, ELCA has continued its march toward full-blown ecumencial relations with just about every church body it can.

I guess for 94% of the ELCA delegates, it doesn't really matter whether Christ is truly present in the meal? O well, nothing new there.

6 comments:

Stan said...

There is something refreshing about this though...

I mean, the Methodist church did reject the blessing of same-sex unions. I suspect that has the potential of raising an issue - but who knows.

Dan @ Necessary Roughness said...

I guess for 94% of the ELCA delegates, it doesn't really matter whether Christ is truly present in the meal?

Christ? The UMC isn't even sure wine is present in the Lord's Supper. :)

Bob Waters said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bob Waters said...

I well remember the Synod Assembly at which I came armed to the teeth with my copy of Calvin's Institutes, various statements by Luther, and the results of my conversations with Reformed pastors in my area as to what they believed about the Sacrament (the particular lie being used by the ELCA nomenklatura at that point was that "Calvinists believe in the Real Presence, too!").

I found that nobody cared- and that very few of the pastors actually seemed to understand the difference between Calvin's and Luther's understandings of the Sacrament- and thought that the whole thing was just a hassle over words!

A belief in the Real Presence is passe in the ELCA. A conservative pastorette of my acquaintence (and yes, there are a few, believe it or not) was actually laughed at my her Pietistic Minnesota congregation for teaching the Real Presence! To his credit, the bishop came down and backed her up, but nothing was done to acknowledge the obvious fact that this congregation was not, in fact, a Lutheran one!

On the flip side, it should be acknowledged that the UMC did adopt awhile back a resolution which acknowledges the actual presence of Christ in the Sacrament. While it's intentionally very vague, an argument can be made that it at least approximates Calvin's view that Christ (though not His physical body and blood) are present. It does seem to be a clear rejection of Zwingli.

Petersen said...

In fairness I don't think 94% of the delegates don't care whether Christ is present in the Sacrament or not, they simply don't care if the communicants discern the Body of not. The key thing, it seems, is make people comfortable and included. They certainly don't think that a lack of unity in doctrine, or even in morality, at the Altar will make one a hypocrite and cause the Body and Blood meant for good to become a curse, even though that has been the position of the Church since the time of the Apostles and is the point of concern for St. Paul in 1 Cor 11.

I think it is fair to say that the ELCA understands communion to be a welcoming meal. They would no more have Methodists abstain from reception of the Body and Blood of Christ than they would fail to offer these Methodists a cup of coffee in the Narthex or offer them a cookie. And if they're diabetic or have some allergy or the coffee and cookie would be dangerous, well, it is just never wrong to offer. For 94% of the ELCA the Holy Communion is little more than sacrament of hospitality and union-making. It is certainly not a confession of unity. I wonder why they don't commune non-Christians since we desire union with them also.

I also wonder what the percentage for the LCMS is? I doubt it is that much less than 94%.

Preachrboy said...

Rev. Petersen,

I think you are right. It's not that they don't care about the real presence, it just doesn't bother them that the person (or the church body)next to them at the altar doesn't care.

Seems like just another permutation of post-modernism's, "It's true for me but not for you, and that's ok!"

Same thing with the whole agreeing to disagree on the homosexuality matters.

Not very loving though, to not care that your brother sees the truth.

As for how much of the LCMS would vote the same, I doubt it would be 94% of delegates, but probably well more than we would like to admit.