Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2019 · 67th Convention, Tampa › Page 418
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 418

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

418

LIFE TOGETHER

Ov. 4-15

To Adhere To, Teach, and Confess
a Faithful Practice of Close(d) Communion
Preamble
In 1967 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in convention
introduced what all would probably call a safe resolution regarding
the Synod’s official practice of close(d) Communion. The exception
in 1967 Resolution 2-19 was introduced as an “emergency”
situation which was either explained or broadened to include
“special cases of pastoral care.” The exception read: “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 synods which are now in
fellowship with us.”
It is important to note that in 1967 the Synod was dealing with a
unified understanding of close(d) Communion: it was to “commune
individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with
us.” That resolution spoke of exceptions to this rule. A shift took place
in Synod when in 1986 Res. 3-08 the exception was sealed within the
understanding of close(d) Communion itself. The use of “emergency”
was abandoned: “That the pastors and congregations of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod continue to abide by the practice
of close communion, which includes the necessity of exercising
responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and
circumstances.” No longer were exceptions deemed “exceptions” to
the rule. Instead the “rule” was defined by “the necessity of exercising
responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and
circumstances.” With the idea of “emergency” left behind, the altar
was opened for the “extraordinary” by “necessity.” One can see how
important for the future unity of the church would be the
understanding of “extraordinary situations and circumstances.”
By the 1990s it was obvious that divisions in practice were the cause
of rising concern. The following resolve from 1995 Res. 3-08
(emphasis added) illustrates this concern:
Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm 1986 Res. 3-08, “that the
pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod continue to abide by the practice of close Communion,
which includes the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral
care in extraordinary situations and circumstances,” and beseech
one another in love to remember that “situations of emergency
and special cases of pastoral care” or “extraordinary situations
and circumstances” are, by their nature, relatively rare; ...
The Synod’s practice of close(d) Communion was more and more
coming down to the local pastor’s understanding of “extraordinary
situations and circumstances” apart from denominational
distinctions based on doctrine. A former unified practice prior to
1967 has bifurcated into a hundred or a thousand different ones. For
many this brings the very question of “Synod” to the fore.
What has happened in regard to Synod’s Communion practice is
that what was a matter of doctrine with a “pastoral care” concern as
expressed in 1967 has become, at least since 1986, a matter of
pastoral care with a doctrinal concern. Sadly, lost in the exchange
is the understanding that the pastor who limits the distribution of the
Lord’s Supper only to those with whom one shares doctrinal unity
is exercising true “pastoral care” for Christ’s flock as well as for the
outsider. Opening up Communion to those with whom one does not
share doctrinal unity or being lax in the administration brings
confusion to the flock, fails to hallow God’s name, and endangers

2019 Convention Workbook

the outsiders who commune. On the last point any discussion of
being “pastoral” with regard to the Eucharist must take seriously St.
Paul’s warning regarding those who “do not discern the body” (1
Cor. 11:29). On this point John Stephenson’s words describing the
Sunday morning reality are significant:
… even if non-Lutheran visitors do read the bulletin’s
communion invitation, is it likely that they understand what is
written there? To begin with, a generic visitor is unlikely to
concede that a Lutheran pastor may supervise the content of his
faith. Moreover, teaching the real presence involves hours of
catechesis, discussion back and forth, and the assimilation of the
true faith in the setting of the worshipping congregation. Should
a casual visitor sign a communion registration card phrased in an
orthodox way, it is unlikely that he has any idea what is meant
and even if the registration of a non-Lutheran communicant is to
take the form of a personal announcement to the pastor, can we
really take seriously as confession of faith a smile and a nod
when the pastor, a few minutes before the Divine Service begins,
says something about the bread and wine being the Lord’s body
and blood? Pieper’s statement about confession of the real
presence as a precondition for admission to the sacrament
contains the law’s accusing bite: “This provision excludes the
Christians in Reformed denominations.” (John Stephenson,
“Admission to the Lutheran Altar: Reflections on Open versus
Close Communion,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 53,
No.1–2 [January-April 1989] 44, emphasis added).
Since the Reformation era to participate in the Eucharist at a
Lutheran altar one had to be Lutheran: hold to the confession of the
Lord’s Supper as set forth in the Augsburg Confession and
reiterated in the Smalcald Articles (SA) and the Formula of
Concord (FC). In the Smalcald Articles, Martin Luther drew a
deliberate line between Lutherans and papists as well as one
between Lutherans and Martin Bucer (and all who were
sympathetic to Zwingli). Thus, Luther’s refusal to commune with
Ulrich Zwingli for the sake of the truth and Christ’s holy name
affected the followers of Zwingli as well. In the Formula of Concord
the discussion of the Lord’s Supper [FC Ep/SD VII] must be
understood in a similar way with respect to the crypto-Calvinists
and their adherents. The approach toward the followers of such false
teachers is addressed plainly in the preface to the Book of Concord:
“It is furthermore to be hoped that when they are rightly instructed
in this doctrine, they will, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
turn to the infallible truth of the divine Word and unite with us and
our churches and schools. Consequently, the responsibility devolves
upon the theologians and ministers duly to remind even those who
err ingenuously and ignorantly of the danger to their souls and to
warn them against it, lest one blind person let himself be misled by
another” (ed. Tappert, p. 12, emphasis added).
Such is the loving, pastoral purpose of close(d) Communion.
Moments before the Sunday morning service is hardly an adequate
time for the necessary indoctrination, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness of the erring. And without these there
is only danger present for “even those who err ingenuously,” who
do not discern the Lord’s body. Every minister of the Sacrament of
the Altar must remember that that is the “extraordinary” situation
and circumstance that requires a close(d) Communion, which
overshadows every other situation begging for the inclusion of the
adherents of false teachers at the Lord’s Supper.
WHEREAS, Oneness at the altar presupposes oneness in faith and
doctrine (Acts 2:42), with the result that close(d) Communion