Poll: Is it religious persecution... ???

[Ernie]

So its obvious that MN doesn't think that the word persecution fits what I am describing. So I will consider whether there is another word or phrase that communicates what I think Jesus is really unhappy about.

Mistreatment, unkindness, deprivation, discourtesy, injustice, prejudice?

exclusivity, exclusionary, closed, preferential.

Possibly snobbishness

I think all these words could work.

[Bootstrap]

I think you missed reading my last post and my first on. Episcopalians and MC USA folks do not have the same view of communion that I do in the slightest. Most would consider me a fundamentalist, a bigot, etc.

So if you refused them communion, would you consider that religious persecution?

No, because there is a huge gulf between us in our understanding of truth, ethics, beauty, and love. There are many things I call sin that they do not call sin. There is very little similarity. They know this and I know this.

I don't see it that way. I find it sad that so many Christians deny each other communion. If our unity is in Jesus Christ and in the things the Bible teaches, then I think it is wrong to close communion to each other over things like that.

After all, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were quite different. But Paul called Peter out for refusing to eat with Gentile Christians, treating that as a betrayal of the Gospel.

I wouldn't call it religious persecution. But I would call it breaking the body of Christ. To me, 1 Corinthians 11 addresses this directly:

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

In context, Paul has been telling them what it means to "eat the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner" in the whole section:

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

The body of Christ is bigger than your part of it or my part of it. Using the Lord's Supper in a way that reifies our divisions is precisely what Paul was warning against here.

I realize that you and some other churches do not see it that way. I do not consider that religious persecution. But I do think that a careful reading of this passage, in context, suggests a different way to obey what Paul is teaching. And I think the failure of Christians to do that is a source of division and hurt. Which you yourself have experienced.

[Josh]

If someone is forced to participate in religious rituals he does not want to participate in or denied participation in religious rituals he wants to participate in and the founder of his religion wants him to participate in these things with these people, I think this is wrong. And it came to me the other day that perhaps this is religious/spiritual persecution.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Someone is forced to participate or not in something that the founder of his religion wants him…What?

I'll try to enlarge on this point...

There have been times in Christian history when churches have forced the population to be baptized and be part of the church.
There have been times in Christian history when churches have not permitted people to commune with them or permitted their members to commune with others - others who have basically the same doctrine and practice and worldview.

I think that Jesus as the author and head of the church is grieved with both.

You know, the entire plain Anabaptist world would refuse to accept me at Communion (including your fellowship). So it's interesting you think open communion is such a high priority. The reality is that every church draws lines and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

#1, Anabaptists don't force people to be baptised (or at least they shouldn't). Perhaps there is social or family pressure sometimes.

#2, Anabaptism has been defined by a closed or close communion since it's founding. That's the essence of what Dutch Anabaptism is. There was much debate about a "pure church" versus a "tares among the wheat" approach, with the magisterial Reformers choosing the latter.

If you think communion should basically be open, then a Reformed / Baptist, Lutheran, or Anglican (and its descendants such as Methodist and Pentecostal) type of fellowship is much closer to your desire. But that also means a rather significant departure from the rest of Anabaptist distinctives.

[Josh]

The key distinction I am trying to make is similar vs. dissimilar.

Well, it's a question of what particular things you think are of central importance and similar vs. things you don't think are important.

The problem at hand is that someone in another group may have very similar things, but not agree on what is of central significant vs unimportant.

For example, I think not charging usury is really important and would prefer not to commune with people who do. Perhaps that isn't important to you. That presents a bit of an impasse, even though it is something beneath the surface. You might feel the Holdeman view on D&R is wrong, on the other hand. So then you and I are at a complete impasse, and it seems completely impractical for either of our fellowships to commune with each other at all.

[Ernie]

If you think communion should basically be open,

I don't. How many times do I need to say this? I'm advocationg for close communion. (not close as in ethnic closeness or in denominational closeness but in "belief and practice closeness".

I think your church practices closed communion. Is that correct?

[Josh]

If you think communion should basically be open,

I don't. How many times do I need to say this? I'm advocationg for close communion. (not close as in ethnic closeness or in denominational closeness but in "belief and practice closeness".

I think your church practices closed communion. Is that correct?

It depends on your definition. We practice communion with those who share like precious faith. Generally speaking, communion is restricted for members of a local congregation; if you wanted to do it somewhere else, you'd need to transfer membership there first. Communion is the result of having a week or two of revival meetings plus an intense period of self examination and each member expressing themselves in a members' meeting.

That format is so different from other Anabaptists that I'm not even sure "communion" has the same meaning.

[NedFlanders]

If you think communion should basically be open,

I don't. How many times do I need to say this? I'm advocationg for close communion. (not close as in ethnic closeness or in denominational closeness but in "belief and practice closeness".

Is it possible Josh is viewing close communion as close in regular personal relationships? That would seem to mimic closest to the last supper example giving to us by Christ. I don’t think Christs intent was to exclude a bunch of people but in the process of closely intimately relating to His disciples it did keep other believers out. It wasn’t offensive but they may have felt it as offensive?

If someone is close in belief and practice that still doesn’t mean they know me or I know them at much of a personal level. So partaking together when we don’t know each other well can make the closeness of communion less valuable as the sense of accountability in submission to a local body is decreased if we just commune with whoever has the same belief and practice. And a proper accountability to the body or the voice of the brotherhood has always been very important to Anabaptist beliefs- much more important than a personal offense.

[Josh]

Is it possible Josh is viewing close communion as close in regular personal relationships? That would seem to mimic closest to the last supper example giving to us by Christ. I don’t think Christs intent was to exclude a bunch of people but in the process of closely intimately relating to His disciples it did keep other believers out. It wasn’t offensive but they may have felt it as offensive?

That is indeed how I view it. So I don't even feel a "right" to participate in another Holdeman communion service that is happening in a congregation near where I am travelling out of town, for example.

I hold a "non-sacramental" view of communion; that is, the fact a communion service is being served does not put any special powers or privileges in participation in the communion service itself. The communion meal does not hold any special powers. Rather, what makes it powerful and special is that it is a ritual to be performed in recognition of the close fellowship that already exists.

If someone is close in belief and practice that still doesn’t mean they know me or I know them at much of a personal level. So partaking together when we don’t know each other well can make the closeness of communion less valuable as the sense of accountability in submission to a local body is decreased if we just commune with whoever has the same belief and practice. And a proper accountability to the body or the voice of the brotherhood has always been very important to Anabaptist beliefs- much more important than a personal offense.

Yes, I would agree with this.

I think the OO River Brethren's love feast is somewhat analogous to my views on this. The amount of preparation and sharing that needs to take place means we only do it once a year. I believe that a community of believers could do it more often, if they were willing to spend more time preparing.

[RZehr]

If someone is forced to participate in religious rituals he does not want to participate in or denied participation in religious rituals he wants to participate in and the founder of his religion wants him to participate in these things with these people, I think this is wrong. And it came to me the other day that perhaps this is religious/spiritual persecution.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Someone is forced to participate or not in something that the founder of his religion wants him…What?

I'll try to enlarge on this point...

There have been times in Christian history when churches have forced the population to be baptized and be part of the church.
There have been times in Christian history when churches have not permitted people to commune with them or permitted their members to commune with others - others who have basically the same doctrine and practice and worldview.

I think that Jesus as the author and head of the church is grieved with both.

Is this someone persecuting the church by asking them to accept his participation in communion? After all, he is "forcing" the church to permit his desire. Just the same as a church is "forcing" him not to participate is persecuting him. Or does this proposed persecution principle only work in one direction?

[Ernie]

Is this someone persecuting the church by asking them to accept his participation in communion? After all, he is "forcing" the church to permit his desire. Just the same as a church is "forcing" him not to participate is persecuting him. Or does this proposed persecution principle only work in one direction?

Not the way I read the NT.