LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 172

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

172

Theology and Church Relations
Synod’s Position on Closed Communion

3-21

To Encourage Use of the Words of Institution
Whereas, A 2008 survey conducted by the LCMS Commission on
Worship regarding worship practice in the LCMS reveals that a significant number of congregations (16 percent in one category) do not use
the Words of Institution when celebrating the Sacrament of the Altar
(Question 6, Results of the LCMS 2008 Worship Survey, p. 18); and
Whereas, All congregations of the LCMS subscribe to the
Lutheran Confessions as true and faithful expositions of the Word
of God; and
Whereas, We confess in the Large Catechism, “The Word must
make the element a sacrament, otherwise it remains mere element”;
and
Whereas, It is always the desire of the people of God not to introduce confusion and doubt but to proclaim with clarity the grace of
God given in His sacraments; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention remind the pastors and
the congregations of the Synod to include the Words of Institution in
the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar; and be it further
Resolved, That the district presidents of the LCMS exercise appropriate ecclesiastical supervision to ensure that all congregations are
observing the Lord’s Supper in accord with the Lutheran Confessions.
Board of Directors
Central Illinois District
3-22

To Expect Practice to Agree with Doctrine
of Closed Communion
Doctrine and Practice
Whereas, Art. II of the LCMS Constitution expects not just agreement in doctrine but also agreement in practice when it says, “The
Synod, and every member of the Synod, accepts without reservation: 1. The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the
written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice [emphasis added]; 2. All the Symbolic Books of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God …”; and
Whereas, The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church (i.e., the Lutheran Confessions) state in the Formula of
Concord, Solid Declaration X 31, “churches will not condemn one
another because of dissimilarity of ceremonies when, in Christian
liberty, one has less or more of them, provided they otherwise are in
unity with one another in doctrine and all its articles, and also in the
right use of the Sacraments” (emphasis added); and
Whereas, Former Synod President Dr. A. L. Barry said, “It is
precisely for the sake of unity in both doctrine and practice among
us, that our Synod adopts doctrinal resolutions (emphasis added)
that affirm and carry out our commitment to the truth of the Word of
God and the Lutheran Confessions” (1998 Convention Proceedings,
“Report of the President,” Part III, p. 61); and
Whereas, Dr. Barry also said, “When I am made aware of a doctrinal concern with one of our congregations or church workers, I
make every effort to inform the District President and encourage
him to take appropriate action to resolve the concern in a manner in
keeping with our scriptural and confessional positions. I have repeatedly underscored with our District Presidents how important it is for
all of us to uphold the Synod’s doctrinal positions. Not to do so will
only result in division among us and will detract from our desire to
reach out boldly with the Gospel” (emphases added) (“Report,” Part
I, p. 54); and

Whereas, Our Synod still maintains in its official writings a scripturally correct position on closed Communion:
The 1983 CTCR document Theology and Practice of the
1.
Lord’s Supper says, “The practice of refusing Communion
to certain Christians and the general population at Lutheran
altars is called close Communion. This practice serves
the Gospel, and even those refused, by its reverence for
our Lord’s last will and testament. … Since fellowship
at the Lord’s Table is also confession of a common faith,
it would not be truthful for those who affirm the Real
Presence and those who deny it to join one another. Their
common Communion would indicate to the non-Christian
community that the last will and testament of Christ could
be interpreted in contradictory ways. Indeed, the nonChristian might rightly ask whether it was Jesus’ word
which determined the church’s position and practice or
simply a human consensus. … Close Communion seeks to
prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith where
there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement. It would be
neither faithful to the Scriptural requirements for admission
to Holy Communion (1 Cor. 11:27 ff.; cf. 10:16–17) nor
helpful to fallen humanity if the Christian church welcomes
to its altars those who deny or question clear Scriptural
teachings.”
In doctrinal resolutions from Synod conventions:
2.

A. 1995 Res. 3-08, “To Reaffirm the Practice of Close(d) Communion”
B. 1998 Res. 3-06A, “To Recognize Action of Florida-Georgia District
as Null and Void.” A 1997 Florida-Georgia District resolution supporting “A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice”
was rejected because it stated that the 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.” (Notably absent
are resolutions affirming our practice of closed communion in the
convention years of 2001 and 2004. On a side note, 2001 Resolution
3-16, “To Encourage Use of Only Wine in Administration of Lord’s
Supper,” is an exceedingly weak resolution at best, since the Holy
Scriptures absolutely and unconditionally require the use of wine,
but our Synod saw fit to only encourage its use.)
and

Actual LCMS Practice
Whereas, Franz Pieper states in Christian Dogmatics, volume
3, 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”
professed as its faith. Not the “official” doctrine, but the actual teaching
determines 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
preserved through the pure Gospel only when that Gospel is really proclaimed.
and

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 172

4/15/10 2:39 PM