# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S169
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 169

Christian church welcomes to its altars those who deny or question clear
Scriptural teachings.

2. In doctrinal resolutions from Synod conventions:

A. 1995 Res. 3-08 “To Reaffirm the Practice of Close(d) Com-
munion.”

B. 1998 Res. 3-06A “To Recognize Action of Florida-Georgia
District as Null and Void.” The 1997 Florida-Georgia resolution
(supporting “‘A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Prac-
tice”) was rejected because it stated that their district affirmed “the
right of its pastors and congregations to welcome to the Lord’s
Table those who, regardless of denominational affiliation, share our
confession of Christ and our conviction of what He freely offers in
the eucharist.”

C. 1998 Res. 3-05 “To Reaffirm Our Practice of Admission to
the Lord’s Supper.” It stated, “Foremost among our concerns with
A Declaration {of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice} is its
failure to recognize the following two essential elements of our
practice: 1. Pastoral Oversight...and 2. Public Confession of the
Faith Is Reflected by Participation in the Sacrament....That
the Synod pleads with its members by the mercies of God to abide
by the historic practice of the church and The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod concerning admission to the Lord’s Supper”; and

Actual LCMS Practice

WHEREAS, Franz Pieper states in Christian Dogmatics, Volume
III, under the title “Orthodox and Heterodox churches,”

A church body is orthodox only if the true doctrine, as we have it in
the Augsburg Confession and the other Lutheran Symbols, is actually
taught in its pulpits and its publications and not merely ‘officially’ pro-
fessed as its faith. Not the ‘official’ doctrine, but the actual teaching de-
termines the character of a church body, because Christ enjoins that all
things whatsoever He has commanded His disciples should actually be
taught and not merely acknowledged in an ‘official document’ as the
correct doctrine. It is patent that faith in Christ will be created and pre-
served through the pure Gospel only when that Gospel is really pro-
claimed;

and

WHEREAS, Former Ist Vice President of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod Rev. Daniel Preus wrote in a paper entitled “Lord,
Have Mercy” (presented at “Confession and Christ’s Mission:
Challenges to the Future of the LCMS,” Melrose Park, Illinois, Oc-
tober 23, 2003),

The first is obvious. It is the increasingly common practice among
many LCMS churches to open the Lord’s Supper to those with whom
we are not in altar and pulpit fellowship. (p. 4)

He also wrote,

But there is simply no question that many pastors of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod have departed from the historic Christian and
Lutheran practice of closed communion. Many in our LCMS are no
longer adhering to our long-held position that the Lord’s Supper (except
under exceptional circumstances) should be given by our pastors only to
members of our own congregation and to those who belong to churches
with which we are in pulpit and altar fellowship. Already over ten years
ago, in 1993, President Barry pointed to the disunity among us in the
area of our communion practice by alluding to the, “‘... numerous letters
and telephone calls from pastors and laity in our Synod wondering if our
Synod still affirms the confessional practice of close communion”
(A. L. Barry, “The President’s Newsletter,” November 1993);

and

Wuereas, In May of 1997, the Florida-Georgia District in con-
vention approved A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and
Practice (DEUP), in which it stated that there should be no “de-
nominational requirement of baptized Christians who desire to re-
ceive the body and blood of Christ offered in the Lord’s Supper.”
This generated some 30 synodical overtures in 1998. Most sought
to reaffirm Synod’s position or reject this document, but five were
in support of open communion. The Northwest District declared,
“A practice congruent with Scripture and the Confessions calls for
the Sacrament to be shared with baptized Christians who repent of
their sins, believe the real presence, and sincerely intend to amend
their sinful lives” (1998 Res. 3-04).

Synod President Dr. A. L. Barry directed his words before the
1998 convention, saying,

First, at our last convention{ 7995}, the Synod adopted a magnifi-
cent resolution concerning close(d) Communion, Res. 3-08. I believe
this resolution needs once again to be affirmed....Second, there are a
number of overtures before you commenting on a resolution adopted
by our Florida-Georgia District which is clearly at odds with the posi-
tion of our church body. The resolution quotes approvingly from a doc-
ument titled, “A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Prac-
tice.” The resolution that the district adopted departs from the position
of our church body. It will be very important for our Synod at its 1998
convention to state fraternally and clearly that the Florida-Georgia Dis-
trict’s decision in this matter is not in keeping with the biblical and con-
fessional position of our Synod, and is, therefore, null and void (Con-
vention Proceedings, 1998, Report of the President, Part II, p. 57).

At the 1998 LCMS convention, a resolution was passed “To
Recognize Action of Florida-Georgia District as Null and Void”
(3-06A), “because it is contrary to the resolutions of the Synod
which have consistently upheld the truth, ‘that pastors and congre-
gations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, except in situa-
tions of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune
individuals of only those Lutheran synods which are now in fel-
lowship with us’” (1967 Res. 2-19; see also 1977 Res. 3-12; 1981
Res. 3-04; 1983 Res. 3-12; 1986 Res. 3-08; 1989 Res. B; 1992 Res.
B; 1995 Res. 3-08); and

WHEREAS, Synod President Dr. Gerald Kieschnick writes in his
2004 Report,

In my travels across the Synod, I have not encountered dis-
agreement in the doctrine of what the Lord’s Supper is. With unanimity,
we believe, teach, and confess the Real Presence of the body and blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ, received in, with, and under the bread and
wine of Holy Communion, for the forgiveness of sin, the strengthening
of faith, and the assurance of life eternal through faith in Christ. I do
not believe that fundamental doctrinal disagreement concerning what
the Lord’s Supper is exists in the LCMS.

At the same time, significant disagreement exists in the Synod re-
garding the policies of admission to Holy Communion, namely, who
should be allowed or even encouraged to receive the Sacrament at the
altars of our LCMS congregations. Some believe that all baptized Chris-
tians who believe in Jesus Christ, who are penitent, who accept the Real
Presence of our Lord’s body and blood, and who desire to amend their
sinful lives should be welcome at our altars. Others believe that only
members of LCMS congregations and congregations of other church
bodies with whom the LCMS is in altar and pulpit fellowship should
be communed at our altars, with no exceptions.

The official position of our Synod, which welcomes members of
LCMS congregations and congregations of church bodies with whom
we are in altar and pulpit fellowship, also understands this policy to in-
clude “‘the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraor-
dinary situations and circumstances” in the communing of “Christians |
who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS”
(1986 Res. 3-08). There is significant disagreement about what consti-
tutes “extraordinary situations and circumstances,” which some pastors
and congregations interpret very broadly and others quite narrowly.

This disagreement in practice has resulted in dissension and dishar-
mony between pastors and congregations of the LCMS, even though
they are otherwise agreed on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

It is important to recall the words of Francis Pieper, fourth President
of the LCMS:

Christian congregations, and their public servants, are only
the administrants and not lords of the Sacrament....On the one
hand, they are not permitted to introduce “Open Communion”;
on the other hand, they must guard against denying the Sacra-
ment to those Christians for whom Christ has appointed it
(Christian Dogmatics, Ill, p. 381). (Report of the President,
Convention Proceedings, 2004, p. 55);

and

To Avoid Logomachy

‘WHEREAS, Concerning the administration of the Lord Supper,
our Synod’s doctrinal position is to welcome to the table those with
whom we are completely united in doctrine and practice, as evi-
denced by their public membership held in a Missouri Synod con-
gregation or a synod with which we are officially in fellowship.
There are some who refer to this teaching and practice as “closed
Communion,” following in our German forefather’s footsteps, who
used the German word geschlossen. There are some who refer to
our teaching and practice with the term close communion. And