LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 242

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

242

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

3. Holy Communion is to be celebrated
in community with God’s gathered
people.

W

e earlier noted that CIH does not deny
the power of the Word at work in the Lord’s
Supper. We also hope that the authors of
CIH would not deny that the Sacrament of the Altar is
intended by Christ for the gathered community — the
congregation. Rather, CIH’s central disagreements with
CC19 seem to be due to its apparent understanding that
(1) the CTCR opinion may be falsely asserting that the
Sacrament is “bound” to a particular time and place20
and (2) that the CTCR is wrong to question the propriety
of online Communion which is jointly consecrated by
the pastor and the household (or a designated worship
leader in the household), and administered, presumably,
by parents.21 We are less clear about whether CIH holds
that the CTCR is itself denying the power of the Word
of God, but that may be implied. This same implication
may underlie CIH’s references to the ongoing LCMS use
of electronic means to proclaim the Gospel:
The history of our own Synod shows that we have
made use of nearly every imaginable technological
resource available to us — from radio to television
to, now, online streaming — to share Christ’s Word
with our world. A faithful permutation of Christ’s
Word — whether this be in the form of a translation
of the Scriptures, or in the form of an interpretation
of these same Scriptures in a sermon, or in the form
of an electronic proclamation of the Scriptures —
does not blunt the force of Christ’s Word. His Word
is powerful and carries with it all of God’s promises wherever and however it is spoken or, for that
matter, written.22
20
CIH does not say this expressly but offering such a thesis in their rebuttal of CTCR’s CC19 seems to imply or suggest it. In its introductory
paragraph it indicates that the Sacrament can be provided in a home by
quoting Luther and the institution of the Passover in Exodus 12. Luther
is quoted from The German Mass and Order of Service, in Jaroslav
Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, eds. Luther’s
Works. Vol. 53. Liturgy and Hymns. (Philadelphia: Fortress,1965),
63–64. Future references to Luther’s Works will be abbreviate as LW
with volume number and page (e.g., LW 53:63–64).
21
CIH 3–5 defends its practice against CTCR objections to it, asserting
that the words of institution are portrayed in Scripture as a blessing spoken by the whole people of God (p. 4), quoting Luther from
Concerning the Ministry (LW 40:34–35), and arguing that the pastors
engaged in the practice do so after inviting congregants to consecrate
“with him” (p. 5) and to administer the Supper only to those who are
properly prepared (pp. 5–6).
22
CIH, 7. We should note that previous efforts of the sort mentioned
here did not produce division in the Synod. We are unaware of anyone

Let us simply state that we do not disagree in any
way with CIH’s position in this paragraph. The CTCR
opinion certainly does not question the power of God’s
Word. Nor does it deny the validity of sharing the Word
by electronic means, for such means are all perfectly
consistent with the nature of the Word itself as a unique
and foundational means of grace.
Indeed, the CTCR’s opinion is grounded in its
conviction about the power of the Gospel — as we have
already indicated in reason one above. Our concern is
with the right understanding and use of God’s Word
— specifically with reference to the Lord’s Supper. Our
questions flow from that and only that. On the one
hand, is CIH unwittingly diminishing the power of the
foundational means of grace — the Word of the Gospel
— in its attempt to emphasize the importance of another
means of grace, the Lord’s Supper? On the other hand,
is CIH fully engaging with what Scripture — the Word
of God — teaches about the Lord’s Supper and how it is
conducted? We are largely in agreement with CIH’s first
assertion, that the Sacrament is not bound to a particular
time and place and are not suggesting that one could not
celebrate the Sacrament in any place but a church building. However, the arguments in CIH to defend the time
and place they are advocating — communion in member
family homes with the consecration and guidance of an
online pastor — are unconvincing.
In the introductory portion of the CIH, the
document quotes Luther and Exodus 12 as support
for their invitation to their members to commune
in their homes. The quotation of a single paragraph
from Luther’s The German Mass and Order of Service,
stating that “a truly evangelical order” for “earnest”
Christians who meet privately in a home, in no way
supports the practice of online family Communion.
Luther is envisioning (literally, imagining) an elite
group of Christians under an ideal set of circumstances
(certainly not an “emergency”) whose meeting in a
house is purely incidental. It is relevant to the pristine
situation he is imagining only because a home is private
and it is not open to others. This is not in any sense a
prescription for family-by-family home Communion.
Moreover, Luther never developed this idea, repeated
it or implemented it (“as yet I neither can nor desire
to begin such a congregation or assembly or to make
rules for it,” says Luther23). Nor was it endorsed by

confessional Lutherans.24 Next, to quote the practice of
the Passover, which was indeed a family meal, is not a
convincing argument for the novel idea that the “new
covenant” in our Lord’s blood is also to be celebrated
as a Sacrament by individuals and families at home.25
Both the Last Supper and Corinthian practice show
that the New Testament does not allow Old Testament
Passover customs to dictate the practice of the Lord’s
Supper. Later CIH adds an additional Luther quote from
Concerning the Ministry to suggest that Luther advocates
home celebrations.
After the first of its three assertions, CIH suggests
additional biblical, historical and confessional references
for online family Communion. Under closer examination, they too fail to support CIH’s contention. Neither
Matthew 18:20 nor 28:20, nor their contexts, provide
any support for any particular Communion practice,
including family Communion. The Marburg debate
and, for that matter, the later Calvinist view that Christ’s
body is only in heaven, also simply do not apply to this
discussion. (The CTCR does not in any way deny the
teachings of Article VIII of the Formula.) And, finally, CIH’s quotation (on pages 2 and 3) from the Large
Catechism, in which Luther says the “new Passover” is
“bound to no place or appointed time,” provides no more
support for online Communion than did the earlier
references in this section of CIH. An examination of
the context shows that Luther’s concern at this point of
the Large Catechism is to urge people not to despise the
Sacrament, but to commune more frequently and not to
think of the Supper as “bound to a special time like the
Passover” of the Old Testament.26
The CTCR does have concerns about time and
place, but they have to do exclusively with the matter
of appropriate times and places — of “right use.”27 Any
building, including a house, could be the right place
for the Sacrament. Any place — an outdoor park or

who held that when the Gospel was preached via radio it was perhaps
invalid.

26
LC Sacrament of the Altar, §39–48, KW 470–72. He accuses the pope
of having turned the Lord’s Supper “back into a Jewish feast.”

23

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

to the task of “preaching the word of God” (Acts 6:2)
and devoted to “prayer and the ministry of the word”
(Acts 6:4). The fact that Communion occurred in these
houses is evidence only of the vitality and adaptability
of the church as assembly. It needs no dedicated structures, as much as that may be convenient and beneficial.
It is a welcoming community of believers, marked less
by earthly family ties than by the common confession
of children of God from diverse backgrounds bound
together by faith.
Finally, in 1 Corinthians, the apostle Paul writes specifically about the importance of the church’s gatherings
for the Sacrament (see 1 coR. 10–14). In 1 Corinthians
11:20 and 33, Paul insists that the Corinthians reform
their practice of the Lord’s Supper, with part of that
reform being that they not neglect the whole congregation by excluding some members of the body of Christ
(in that case, the poor). Paul adds that the home is the
place not for the church’s Sacrament, but for eating
(1 coR. 11:34). Paul’s approach in 1 Corinthians is thoroughly centered in the principle that the Sacrament is for
the whole of the local congregation as it gathers.

4. Emergency Baptism? Yes. Emergency
Communion? No.

A

s we have noted, both Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper have much in common. Both are
instituted by Christ and depend entirely on the
Gospel Word that empowers them and that defines their
benefit — that both bestow forgiveness, life and salvation.
Yet, the different Means of Grace are also unique. The
written Word can be disseminated in a variety of forms,
while always retaining its character of divine inspiration
and truth and offering throughout its pages the Gospel
of salvation (e.g., John 5:39; Acts 17:1–2, 10–11; Rom. 1:1–3;
2 tim. 3:16). The spoken Word of the Gospel, proclaimed
individually by countless members of the royal priesthood and preached from pulpits as well as scattered
abroad (“broadcast”) as far and wide as sound can be
carried and without any restrictions on who would hear
it, always retaining its character as the power of God
for salvation (e.g., mAtt. 13:3–9; Rom. 10:17; Luke 24:34).
Baptism, administered always with water and always to
a particular individual (even if thousands are baptized
on the same day), retains its individual character as a
means by which we receive discipleship, adoption, the
Holy Spirit and new birth. And, in an emergency, any
Christian baptizes (e.g., mAtt. 3:11; 28:19; John 1:33; Acts

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

LW 53:64.

2023 Convention Workbook

25
See the next paragraph that shows that Luther actually condemns
such a practice in the fifth part of the Large Catechism. A type of home
Communion to celebrate Passover was the background for the CTCR’s
opinion on DVD consecration. See “Texas District President Request
concerning ‘DVD Consecration’” at files.lcms.org/wl/?id=7ZiqCqGn3FiMMtQcbrcFQuPjjfn9AoMQ.

27

5

2:38–41; Rom. 6:3–4; titus 3:5; 1 peteR 3:21).

So also, then, we receive the Lord’s Supper as a
unique means of grace. It is not received by meditative
reading alone, like the written Word. It is not scattered
abroad, like the spoken Word. Unlike Baptism, it is
not administered to the isolated individual except for
when the pastor, who is called by the assembled church,
carries the Sacrament on behalf of the assembly to the
sick member. We value the Sacrament highly, but we
restrict its administration rather than sharing it freely,
having those with doubts and questions, visitors from
other confessions and even our own children wait until
they can share our confession (1 coR. 1:10), examine
themselves and rightly discern Christ’s body and blood.
This is especially true in view of the sobering fact that
the apostle’s instructions for the right use of the Supper
contain a unique warning that its misuse can actually be
harmful to the uninstructed and unprepared communicant both physically and spiritually (1 coR. 11:27–32;
see beLow undeR #5). Each of the Means of Grace is rightly
used in a manner appropriate to it.
The LCMS at its 2019 convention vigorously affirmed
the importance of the royal priesthood and the high
calling of royal priests at all times to share the Word in
their vocations and to forgive sins in their relationships,
as well as to baptize in emergencies. The Synod also
strongly affirmed the complementary nature of the royal
priesthood and the office of public ministry. The CTCR
opinion is informed by these biblical views. However,
as noted above, the Lord’s Supper’s uniqueness leads to
its administration by one who is called and appointed
publicly to exercise the kind of pastoral care that enables
the communicant to be rightly prepared for the Sacrament and certain of the gift received therein. So, we
again reaffirm that the Lutheran church has not viewed
the Sacrament of the Altar as an “emergency sacrament,”
unlike Baptism or something any member of the royal
priesthood can or should do, like proclaiming “the excellencies of him” who has called us “out of darkness into
his marvelous light” (1 peteR 2:9).
Luther, for example, vigorously defended the propriety of the laity’s engagement with the Word of God
devotionally, the need for families to gather for the Word
and prayer, for the royal priest’s vocational proclamation and for Baptism in emergency situations. Indeed,
he preferred a vigorous devotional life in the home over
the acceptance of an unfaithful pastor. He addressed just
such a problem — just such an emergency — in his letter
to the Bohemians, Concerning the Ministry. Although for

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

24
Why? It is, in truth, a bad idea in which a hierarchy of “earnest”
Christians purposefully excludes “all sorts of people” not only from the
Sacrament, but from the whole of the means of grace. One might question even this rather strange notion of “private” vs. “public” congregational worship — frankly, it is hard to know exactly what Luther had in
mind here. (Even Luther could have bad ideas on occasion!)

7

SA, Preface of Martin Luther §10, KW 299.

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

28

For it would be safer and more wholesome for the
father of the household to read the gospel and, since
the universal custom and use allows it to the laity, to
baptize those who are born in his home, and so to
govern himself and his according to the doctrine of
Christ, even if throughout life they did not dare or
could not receive the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is
not so necessary that salvation depends on it. The
gospel and baptism are sufficient, since faith alone
justifies and love alone lives rightly.29
One can hardly accuse Luther of neglecting the
importance of the Sacrament of the Altar, yet he rightly
reminds us that it “is not so necessary that salvation
depends on it.” Unlike Baptism, the Lord’s Supper is not
an “emergency sacrament.”30
But what of the quote from Luther on page 4 in CIH?
There is no other Word of God than that which is
given all Christians to proclaim. There is no other
baptism than the one which any Christian can bestow. There is no other remembrance of the Lord’s
Supper than that which any Christian can observe
and which Christ has instituted. (AE 40 34–35)
[Emphasis in CIH.]
This, too, must be read in context. Luther is establishing the fact that the keys belong to the whole church and
that, when no recognized (ordained) minister is to be
found, the church may establish the ministry on its own,
even without the approval of bishops, which was the
situation in Bohemia.31
Concerning the Ministry, LW 40:9.

30
At no point does CIH refer to the Lord’s Supper as an emergency sacrament. At the same time, however, the apparent rationale for offering
the Lord’s Supper in an online family setting is that “our current situation,” that is, the Covid-19 crisis is leaving Christ’s people “without the
blessing of the Lord’s Supper” (CIH, 1). We can only understand this to
mean that the availability of the Lord’s Supper is essential in the present
medical emergency — that the emergency requires this innovative
administration of the Eucharist.
31
CIH might have added quotations of Lutheran fathers from C. F.
W. Walther’s Church and Office. Walther provides the same Luther
quote from Concerning the Ministry. He follows it with quotes from
Johann Gallus, Tilemann Heshusius, and Johann Müller, to say that
at times “ordinary Christians ... may proclaim the Gospel, remit sins,
baptize, and administer the Lord’s Supper.” That might seem to cement
CIH’s position, but the elision in the preceding sentence leaves out the
all-important qualification “in such cases when no upright minister of
the Church is to be had.” Examples provided are groups of Christians
stranded or imprisoned, who therefore appoint the most well-prepared
man from among them to be their pastor. C. F. W. Walther, The Church
& the Office of the Ministry: Kirche und Amt: The Voice of Our Church
on the Question of Church and Office, J. T. Mueller, trans., Matthew

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

SA, Second Article, §8–9, KW 302.

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

Luther, “emergency knows no rule,” he offered careful
counsel to the Christians in Bohemia with these words:

29

cemetery (common settings for many Easter sunrise
services) — could be the proper setting for celebrating
the Sacrament. Any time, including 3 a.m. on a Tuesday
could be the right time for the Sacrament. It is our
common practice in the church to schedule services on
the Lord’s Day and on other occasions at set times. We
schedule our celebrations at set places — places where
the congregation can gather most easily. We do these
things not because we believe the Sacrament is bound to
be given only then and in those places, but because those
times and places are the best times available for God’s
people to “assemble themselves together” for public
worship (see heb. 10:25).
The sole questions that concern us are how one can
commune with certainty and in the best way.28 Lutheran
practice has never used its doctrinal assertion against
Zwingli — that Christ is not bound by time and place
but is able to be present bodily in many places — including in the Sacrament, when and where it is properly
administered (FC SD VII, §9–15, KW 594–95; §88–103,
KW 608–11; §119, KW 614; FC SD VIII, §92, KW 633–
34) — as an argument for family Communion at home.
Luther’s occasional statements about offering the Lord’s
Supper in homes do not have “family communion” in
view and are not reflective of Luther’s more common
view, nor of Lutheran practice. More significantly, they
do not reflect or represent the positions of the Lutheran
Confessions.
Therefore, it remains our opinion that the practice
advocated in CIH is problematic in many ways. The
Scripture speaks of the whole church (congregation)
coming together. The Lord’s own Communion with
His disciples at the Last Supper was a gathering of the
church, not a family. It was conducted in a borrowed
room where all could gather. It was not a family meal at
home. In Acts and the epistles, we read about breaking of
bread together in homes (Acts 2:46) and about churches
meeting in a member’s house (Rom. 16:5; 1 coR. 16:19;
coL. 4:15; phm. 1:2). But the mention of breaking bread in
Acts 2:46 is connected with sharing food with thanksgiving, so it is by no means conclusive that it refers to
Communion. But, even if this is Communion, the third
person plural pronoun used both for temple gatherings
and home gatherings implies that this is part of congregational, not familial, activity. Similarly, the many
references to churches meeting in homes indicates that
the homes in question were where congregations gathered, together with the apostles and/or those appointed

6

Lastly, we should remember that the frequency of the
Lord’s Supper has always been an adiaphoron. In many
congregations of the LCMS the Sacrament is not offered
on a weekly basis. In times past it has been offered
monthly or even quarterly in Missouri Synod congregations, while preaching and baptisms continued weekly.
While that is not by any means ideal, it indicates that the
Sacrament of the Altar has and ought to be viewed from
its own proper perspective, and that orthodox Lutherans
have never viewed weekly access to the Lord’s Supper as
a iure divino command or practice or as essential to the
survival of the church.

5. Responsible pastoral care is essential
for the proper scriptural and confessional
administration of the Lord’s Supper.

F

irst Corinthians not only emphasizes the
gathered community, but it also shows that wrong
practices may invalidate the Lord’s Supper and
that it may be received not as a means of grace but as a
means of judgment. Note Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians
11, where he says of the practice in Corinth, “It is not
the Lord’s Supper that you eat” (v. 20) and warns about
the possibility of eating and drinking to one’s judgment
(v. 29). The potential for such judgment is directly related to the question of responsible pastoral care.
Responsible pastoral care is required for right use of
the Lord’s Supper. There can be no proper scriptural and
confessional administration of the Lord’s Supper without
it. CIH recognizes this and states as much:
In the Divine Services that have been celebrated
online among our Synodical congregations, a rightly
called minister of the Gospel has presided over the
Sacrament, inviting his congregants to speak the
Words of Institution with him — not instead of
him. Careful pastoral care and responsible pastoral
oversight has been exercised as our pastors have
called upon their people to follow the apostle Paul’s
guidance and heed his warning to the Corinthians:
Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the
bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and
drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks
judgment on himself. (1 coRinthiAns 11:28-29)

C. Harrison, ed. (St. Louis: Concordia, 2012), 271, 275–77, 282. The
quotation is from Heshusius on 277.

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

8