# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S359
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 359

Admission to the Lord’s Supper
Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching

A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
November 1999

ilations from the Lutheran Confessions are taken from The Book of
Concord edited by T.G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959).
The following abbreviations have been used:

AC — Augsburg Confession

Ap — Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Ep — Epitome of the Formula of Concord

FC — Formula of Concord

LC — Large Catechism

SA — Smalcald Articles

SC — Small Catechism

SD — Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord

INTRODUCTION

he 1998 convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod (LCMS) asked the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations to provide, “in a timely fashion, a care-
ful response to A Declaration [of Eucharistic Understanding and
Practice}, with special emphasis on pastoral oversight and the role
that agreement in the public confession of faith participation in the
Lord’s Supper entails.” This response, said the Synod, should be
useful “as the basis for study and discussion of this issue through-
out the entire Synod.”!
Resolution 3-05 mentions two specific issues that relate to ad-
mission to the Eucharist: pastoral oversight and doctrinal unity
among those who commune. In order to speak to those issues, how-
ever, more foundational considerations must lie firmly in place. It is
undeniably true that the Synod’s historic position accurately re-
flects the great stream of churchly tradition.’ This tradition teaches
that both (1) a genuine understanding of and faith in Christ’s pres-
ence in and through the sacramental elements and (2) doctrinal and
personal unity among those who commune together are necessary
for admission to the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, an appeal to
church history, though offering a clear and unified answer, cannot
provide a sufficient answer without clear testimonies from the
Bible and from the Lutheran Confessions as a true exposition of
sacred Scripture,
This document offers, therefore, a study of both biblical mater-
ial and confessional writings as an attempt to foster both discus-
sion and informed agreement within our church body. It has the
following overall outline:
I. The Scriptures
A. | Corinthians 1 1:17-34: The Congregation’s Sacrament
of Unity

B. Pastors as Stewards of the Mysteries
C. “Doctrinal Divisions” in the New Testament

II. The Lutheran Confessions
A. Introduction: Who Should Not Commune? Two Answers
B. How “Christians as Individuals” May Commune Worthily
C. Communicants as “Confessors”

Il. A Critique of A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding

and Practice

IV. Concluding Summary

V. Appendix: Common Questions About Admission to the

Lord’s Supper

A major goal of this study is to further the discovery of the ex-
tent and nature of the agreements and disagreements that exist
among us by laying out in some detail the pertinent issues regard-
ing admission to the Lord’s Supper. The procedure will be to work
carefully from biblical and confessional theology toward an under-

standing and practice that is faithful to and consistent with biblical
and confessional teaching. The problems to be addressed are not
simple ones that can receive only cursory answers. While specific
response to A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Prac-
tice (DEUP) occurs in Part III, footnotes throughout the document
will make reference to DEUP when appropriate. Citations from the
New Testament are original translations.

I. THE SCRIPTURES
A. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34: The Congregation’s Sacrament of Unity

Overview of Context

A contextual study of | Cor. | 1:17-34 may begin with two im-
portant observations that will be reiterated and supported through-
out the discussion that follows in this section. First, Paul was deal-
ing with an intra-congregational situation in Corinth. The closest
modern analogy to Paul’s tactics and teaching in ] Corinthians 1 |
would be a situation of pastoral care within a particular Christian
congregation. Second, the divisiveness of the Corinthian Christians
in their eucharistic assemblics was such a heinous affront precisely
because the Lord's Supper is divinely given to maintain and pre-
serve spiritual unity among those who gather. To gather in disunity,
then. is to contradict directly the very nature of the Sacrament and
the purpose for which it exists.*

The entirety of Paul’s first Corinthian letter reveals that the
Corinthian Christians were a divided, fractured group. Their schis-
matic behaviors and attitudes consistently contradicted the truths
of the Gospel contained in Paul’s apostolic teaching. It was not that
the Corinthians’ divisions actually divided the body of Christ, for
the church possesses a unity in the Savior that no particular sin can
destroy. Similarly, the schisms and factions present at the celebra-
tion of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11) did not nullify or invali-
date the Supper. Such divisions, however, contradicted the Gospel
and turned the Lord’s Supper from Christ’s gracious gift into
Christ's presence of judgment.

Already in the first chapter Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ divi-
sions as an offense to the Gospel. When the apostle writes, “Has
Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or
were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13), the ex-
pected answer to all of these questions is, “No!” Yet the tragedy of
the Corinthians’ life together is that they are behaving as if the an-
swer were “Yes!” In truth, Christ cannot be divided, but the
Corinthian believers, members of the body of Christ, have created
“schisms” (oxtouata, | Cor. 1:10) among themselves as if Christ
were divided.

Foremost among the Corinthians’ many problems was their fail-
ure to recognize and nurture their community life as a manifesta-
tion of the Gospel and its power. They were missing the connection
between union with Christ and loving unity with one another. In
response to this Paul proclaimed:

For if someone sees you who have knowledge reclining in an idol’s

temple, won't his conscience, because it is weak, be “built up’ with the

resull thal he eals meat offered 10 idols? For the one who is weak, the
brother on account of whom Christ died, is being destroyed because of
your knowledge. And in this way, by sinning against the brothers and
beating their consciences, you are sinning against Christ. (1 Cor.

8:10-12)

The Corinthians’ sinning in their relationships with one another
was at the same time, and more importantly, sinning against Christ
Himself. Sin on the horizontal, interpersonal dimension really was
sin on the vertical dimension. Accordingly, Paul sought to remedy
the problems of “schisms” (oyiopata | Cor. 1:10; 11:18; 12:25),
“factions” (aipéoetc; | Cor. 11:19) and their tendency “to divide”
(uepiCerv; | Cor. 1:13) into competing groups.

Given this context it is not surprising that the two passages in
which Paul teaches about (or relies on teaching about) the Lord’s
Supper (1 Cor. 10:16—-18; 1 Cor. 11:17-34) primarily emphasize
the corporate character and implications of the Eucharist. Paul ex-

2001 Convention Workbook