LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 173

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Theology and Church Relations
Whereas, The former First Vice-President of the Synod, the 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, October 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

Whereas, In May of 1997, the Florida-Georgia District approved
A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice (DEUP),
which stated that there should be no “denominational requirement
of baptized Christians who desire to receive the body and blood of
Christ offered in the Lord’s Supper.” This generated some 30 overtures to the 1998 Synod convention. 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” (Res.
3-04). Synod President Dr. A. L. Barry directed his words before the
1998 Convention, saying,
First, at our last convention [1995], the Synod adopted a magnificent resolution concerning close(d) Communion, Res. 3-08. I believe
this resolution needs once again to be affirmed … [emphasis added].
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 position of our church body. The resolution quotes approvingly from a document titled, “A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice.” 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 District’s decision in this matter is not in keeping with
the biblical and confessional position of our Synod, and is, therefore,
null and void [emphasis added]. (1998 Convention Proceedings, “Report of the President,” Part II, p. 57)

At the 1998 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 congregations of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals
of only those Lutheran synods which are now in fellowship with us”
(emphasis added) (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).
Synod President Dr. Gerald Kieschnick writes in his 2004 Report,
In my travels across the Synod, I have not encountered dis­agreement
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.

173

At the same time, significant disagreement exists in the Synod regarding 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 Christians 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
include “the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances” in the com­muning of “Christians
who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS”
(1986 LCMS Convention Resolution 3-08). There is significant disagreement about what constitutes “ex­traordinary situations and circumstances,” which some pastors and congregations interpret very
broadly and others quite narrowly [emphasis added].
This disagreement in practice has resulted in dissension and disharmony 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 Sacrament to those Christians for whom
Christ has appointed it. (Christian Dogmatics, III, p. 381). (“Report of
the President,” 2004 Convention Proceedings, p. 55);
and

Whereas, To avoid logomachy 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 evidenced by their public membership held in a Missouri
Synod congregation 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 forefathers’ footsteps,
who used the German word geschlossen. There are some who refer
to our teaching and practice with the term “close communion.” And
rather recently it has been common to include both possible words,
by showing this in print with the letter “d,” in parentheses, so that
it looks like this: “close(d) communion.” In keeping with St. Paul’s
command not to “strive about words to no profit” (2 Tim. 2:14), this
resolution will not concern itself with these differences in words,
provided that the doctrine taught is the same. However, if the word
“close” is used to teach that we only need to be “close” to each other
in teaching and practice, only somewhat united, then it is a different
teaching; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2009 Southern Illinois District (SID) convention direct her district president to undertake a visitation of every
SID congregation and pastor in order to determine whether those
SID congregations and pastors are administering the Sacrament of
Communion according to our Synod-approved teaching on closed
Communion, which is founded on the Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions (Note: The district president always has the right to
direct his vice-presidents and circuit counselors to assist him in the
endeavor); and be it further
Resolved, That SID direct the district president to present a report
to the 2012 SID convention concerning his findings and the actions
he has taken in order to restore our unity in doctrine and practice;
and be it finally
Resolved, That the 2009 Southern Illinois District convention
memorialize The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to direct her
district presidents to initiate a visitation of every congregation and
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 173

4/15/10 2:39 PM