Speaking the Truth about "Radical Hospitality"

I would love to learn more

The teachings of Jesus and the revelation of the New Testament affirm the difference between those who are children of God and those who are not. Both St. Paul and St. John distinguish between children of light and children of darkness, between children of wrath and children of mercy. The call of God creates a distinction between those who are within the reign of God and those who are outside of God’s kingdom. Yes, this distinction sets up two groups – insiders and outsiders. What keeps this distinction from being exclusive is the Great Commission which offers everyone a place in the Kingdom of God by inviting all people to become disciples through baptism and instruction. We do not achieve inclusivity by blurring or removing the distinction between children of light and children of darkness. That would be counterproductive to the mission of the church. We achieve inclusivity by proclaiming the Gospel and inviting people into the community, not as a guest at the table but as a member of the family. The concern for showing hospitality and inclusivity is a valid one. The church has not always been very good at including those who come from outside the family. But when Jesus demonstrated hospitality and inclusivity, he did it by being willing to go to the outsiders and share a meal with them in their own context. When he instituted Holy Communion, he hosted a meal for his closest disciples and shared his own body and blood with them. Holy Communion is an experience of fellowship with God and with sisters and brothers in the faith. Baptism is the entrance rite into that community, that family of God. So Baptism comes first.

It is essential to maintain the integrity of our Christian faith and preserve the understanding that through death and resurrection with Christ in baptism and with repentant hearts we may enter the holy banquet table to receive the gifts of everlasting life and be welcomed into God’s Kingdom. Doing anything else would be a mockery and insult to what Jesus did for us on the cross.

As a life-long Lutheran, baptized into the Body of Christ at four weeks of age, I'm very disturbed to read this "news" in my latest issue of Lutheran Forum. Although I married a Roman Catholic 52 years ago and raised four faithful and practicing Roman Catholic children, I never considered becoming an RC. Now at the age of 73, it's time for me to leave my present ELCA congregation and find another church. Actually, I never thought I'd ever admit that the Roman Catholic Church where I have worshipped with my family very often over the years, is looking good to me. (My children consider themselves Lutheran Roman Catholics and I guess I'm a Roman Catholic Lutheran!) For the past five years, I've been embarrassed and ashamed to admit I'm Lutheran so it's time for me to investigate the NALC. I've been an Evangelical Catholic for all these years - but making the jump to Roman Catholic no longer feels impossible.

Communion without baptism is trying to have the wedding feast before the wedding. It makes no sense theologically and honestly hurts the witness of the church.

As Dr. Eric Gritsch used to remind his students, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." So, in this case, the absence of the record of the baptism of the apostles is not evidence of the absence of their baptisms. Also, Last Supper, shared by Jews (Jesus and His disciples) before the death and resurrection of Christ, while the foundation upon which the Church's celebration of the Mass/Eucharist/etc. is based, is not precisely identical to the Church's post-resurrection celebration of the sacraments, particularly as observed by Gentiles grafted into the people of God by baptism.

I will not and cannot sign this (whatever it is). I do not believe it is in the interest of the Church (capital C) or the ELCA (church with a lower-case-c) to forestall the possibility that folks who have not yet been baptized might come to faith by being enthusiastically and extravagantly welcomed to the Table. There is *absolutely no scriptural justification* for excluding the unbaptized from the Table. If there were, *NONE* of the disciples would qualify - as *NONE* of the disciples were (according to scripture) baptized. To make this an eternally binding requirement is to go against not only scripture, but also common sense. Some people stumble upon a party and are invited to eat. And if the food is good, they often stay. Shame (YES!) shame on those who would be Pharisees at the Table.

Excuse me. Where do the Scriptures say the Twelve were not baptized?

Jesus commanded his disciples to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Whether the twelve eleven were baptized or not is really not an issue, though it seems highly likely that they were baptized. However, the point is they were his DISCIPLES, and it was to his disciples and his disciples only that he gave his Body and Blood. Then, the eleven remaining disciples went out as Jesus' Apostles and made disciples by baptizing them. Once they were baptized, they could partake of the Holy Supper. So, there is a Scriptural basis for the Church's ancient historic and unbroken teaching and practice. Disciples receive the Lord's Supper and disciples, according to the command of our Lord, are those who are baptized. The Church practices hospitality by inviting everyone to be baptized that they may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and believe the Good News. Then, having received the gift of faith, this faith is strengthened and nourished by the Sacrament of the Altar. The entire Church Catholic has always believed and taught this; however, a small group of sectarians has decided they know better than the Apostles, the martyrs, the saints, doctors of the Church, confessors, theologians, and the whole Church throughout the ages. The Church apparently was 'mistaken' all this time. And those who want to remain faithful and consistent to what has always been believed and practiced in the Church are now called Pharisees! This is such a tragedy.

The shrill tone of your argument has convinced me to sign this petition and to encourage "this church" to focus on a solid catechumenate which leads to baptism, which leads to the Eucharist. If there is any shame to be had is the emotionalism of your screed.

If there is shame, you need to be shaming St. Paul and 2000 years of Christian pastors and teachers. Shaming doesn't lead to discussion.

However Jay, our Lutheran Confession even tells us that there is a need for faith in order to receive communion properly in the Small Catechism. There needs to be the belief that the body and blood was given and shed for you as well as the belief that it was done for the forgiveness of sin. If people don't believe this, then communion means nothing to them. We believe that in Christ's true presence with, in, and under the bread and the wine that we are reassured the promise of God that our sin is forgiven. If we do not believe we are a transgressor or for that matter in need of any forgiveness or that what Jesus has done has no meaning or bearing on my life then, according to the Small Catechism, we are not receiving communion properly and we should not be given communion.