LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 243

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
If a person has not been properly prepared to receive
Christ’s body and blood through repentance, discernment, and faith, or if they have been reluctant to
receive the Sacrament in their home, they have been
invited to receive a blessing instead.
Pastors who have led their congregants in the reception of Communion in their homes have taken extensive measures to be responsible to their vocations as
“stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 coRinthiAns 4:1)
by exercising faithful pastoral care. We do not see any
reason, therefore, why a congregation cannot join
in saying Christ’s words, which He has given to His
whole Church, with its pastor.32
We commend the authors of CIH for the desire
to offer pastoral care. As commendable as these
efforts are, however, it seems to us, first of all, that
this important matter is not treated adequately. The
exercise of “careful pastoral care and responsive pastoral
oversight” is difficult and challenging under normal
circumstances — indeed, it is one of the most difficult
and challenging tasks entrusted to undershepherds
of the Good Shepherd. The possibility of exercising
such “careful pastoral care and responsible pastoral
oversight” seems questionable given the many different
circumstances that would inevitably arise (many likely
unknown to the pastor) in communion services held in
scores or hundreds of homes. Secondly, the very nature
of the pastoral care that is described and envisioned
in the document is inadequate. Indeed, we believe it is
impossible to carry out pastoral care in a responsible way
in the online home/family Communion endorsed by
CIH. In the description as provided, the pastor delegates
much of Communion practice to the household. Since
the household provides the elements, what will they use
if there is no bread or wine?33 Who is consecrating in
this scenario in which everyone speaks together “with
the pastor”? Is the pastor consecrating from afar? Or,
is the family consecrating for themselves? Or, is this
some sort of “co-consecration?” (As discussed above,
the issue of proper consecration is no small matter to
the Confessors.) And what of single individuals who
32

CIH, 4–5.

Descriptions of online Communion in several congregations indicated that grape juice was commended as an alternative to wine. Actual
reports from participants in Lutheran online services indicated that in
certain cases other beverages in place of wine and other foods in place
of bread have been employed. While the authors and supporters of
CIH would hopefully frown on such an aberration, this demonstrates
the difficulty of exercising pastoral oversight when there is no single
meal but many individual meals in private homes.
33

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

Christians throughout history have suffered similar
times during which the Means of Grace were limited.
The church in China survived Maoist oppression
meeting in homes for five decades, often without a Bible,
on the power of remembered words of Scripture. Our
great-grandparents in the Missouri Synod survived the
three-year trial of the influenza epidemic from 1917–
1919, often going months without any public worship
(including the Sacrament).
As we await His mercy on us, our country and our
world at this time, we may all be bereft of the Sacrament
for a time, but we will not lack God’s Word. It will not be
bound. Its Gospel is proclaimed and it will sustain us. And
through it all, by God’s grace, may our appreciation of and
longing for the precious Sacrament of the Altar grow.

7. “Online Communion” has
questionable roots.

T

he practice of Communion via online means did
not arise with Covid-19. Trevor Sutton points out
that it has been practiced for some time by evangelical churches. Its purpose in those circles has been to
offer a way to gather wider audiences than Communion
within even very large sanctuaries would allow. It is part
of what Tim Hutchings calls Creating Church Online.36
By having online Communion, the megachurch — or
any church for that matter — is able to claim more members — members who can get anything a local church
would offer.
The notion of an “online church” may have some
immediate appeal, especially during this time. Some
might say that is what every church with services or
sermons available online is doing. We do not believe that
is accurate. The many steps congregations are taking to
proclaim the Word are often adapting to this emergency
alone. Others have been using the internet as a regular
part of their ministry. Electronic means of communication are a worthy and time-tested aspect of a church’s
ministry — but they are not an adequate approach to
“creating church.”37 The church is the body of Christ. It is
physical people who hold to Christ in faith. The church
is both catholic — scattered throughout the world — and
local, and locatable, gathered physically in particular
36
We are again indebted to Sutton, who documents these sources. Tim
Hutchings, Creating Church Online: Ritual, Community, and
New Media (New York: Routledge, 2017).
37
The CTCR addressed the topic of social media, a significant form of
electronic communication, A Snapshot of Trending Tools (2019), files.
lcms.org/wl/?id=ntp6kcGZ6krg44AtLFGhaRY7SfoWJp2L.

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

live alone? Who consecrates in their setting? Are they to
commune themselves, or should they refrain from the
Sacrament?
Is the whole of pastoral oversight in such cases
simply the verbal or written instruction from the pastor
that whoever is leading the family communion service
at home (assuming there is such a leader) should follow
Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:28–29? In the case
of blessing those who have “not been properly prepared,”
who is to determine what makes one unprepared? Those
who are not instructed and prepared should be excluded,
out of Christian love and concern. Will uncatechized
children or family members be asked to refrain from the
Sacrament — or will (unknown) “exceptions” be regularly granted? Will those who do not share the Synod’s
beliefs be excluded since they are not in agreement with
the confession of this church? Are moms and dads at
home to be expected (unfairly and unreasonably burdened) with “being the pastor” in these situations, which
even for ordained and experienced pastors are some of
the most difficult and sensitive pastoral care decisions to
make? Who is presiding over all of this?
If this is a congregational Communion by virtue of
the pastor’s online presence, then what about nonmembers who log in to the service? Does this practice include
those guests who should be welcomed to commune?
Worthy and well-prepared guests should always be (and
feel) welcome at a sister congregation. Is that done? Can
it be done?
Lastly, in this case many worthy and well-prepared
individuals, visitors as well as members, would be
excluded by reason of conscience. CIH itself indicates
this on page 5, which speaks of blessing those who are
“reluctant to receive the sacrament in their home.” Here
CIH seems to recognize that their practice does create
uncertainty and doubts — so much so that some will be
reluctant to commune. Does that reluctance on the part
of congregational members and others from the Synod
trouble the pastors who endorse this practice? Isn’t it
problematic that many (most?) from their own church
body — with whom they are in fellowship — could
not conscientiously participate with them because this
practice makes them uncertain that they would receive
Christ’s body and blood by these means? Is that truly
responsible pastoral care? These are important and troubling questions.
We repeat the issue raised in CC19 — is there “any
uncertainty being created regarding what is being
received?” Some evidently believe there would be none,
9

places. As AC VII says, is a gathering of believers, meeting together, assembling, congregating for the preaching
of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. It
does all these things in conformity with the Word.
The evangelical churches that have pioneered online
“church” and online Communion have done so with
different understandings of the church and, even more,
of the Sacraments, than those of the Lutheran church.
There is no question that Lutherans can learn and benefit
from some of the work that the Lord is doing through
evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ. At the same
time, however, we have to test the spirits. We can understand quite well why a common evangelical understanding of the Lord’s Supper — one that views it merely as
a symbolic expression of welcome and openness to one
another without any actual presence of the body and
blood of Christ — can be content with online Communion. We are concerned that when Lutheran churches
employ this evangelical innovation it may also encourage
an evangelical perspective on the Sacrament.

8. Novel practices often establish
dangerous precedents.

S

ome congregations practicing online Communion
have indicated that this is only a temporary,
“emergency” measure, implying that they will
cease the practice when the Covid-19 crisis is over.
Nevertheless, the precedent of online home Communion
troubles us. What happens after this crisis is over
remains to be seen. If this is endorsed now as something
that is truly “good, right, and salutary,” why would it
necessarily be questioned or discarded later — especially
if an essential part of the argument for this practice is
that it is simply another wonderful, creative, innovative
means of sharing God’s Gospel gifts? Is there any reason
why congregations should not at any future point treat
online family Communion as an acceptable alternative
method of Communion? Why would we not?
Should we now, because of the challenging (but
temporary and ever-changing) Covid-19 situation,
change our longstanding teaching and practice and
conclude that Luther and Lutheran teachers were wrong
to hold that only Baptism is an emergency sacrament?
Should their view that while Baptism is to be conducted
in an emergency, but the Lord’s Supper is not to be
administered as an emergency Sacrament, now be
acknowledged as a doctrinal error? And, if the Lord’s
Supper is required in a time of emergency, when is it

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

11

but we strongly and respectfully disagree. Many could
not participate in this practice in good conscience precisely because they are uncertain about the validity of the
Sacrament when the witness of the Word of God about
sacramental practice is seemingly ignored.

6. “I Want It All and I Want It Now”:
Discerning the influence of culture on
our theology and practice.

P

astors, both those who are part of the CTCR
and others, are grateful for the level of supportive
self-sacrifice among those they serve. Most of
their members have graciously adjusted to the challenges
we are facing in this time of Covid-19. Members have
been more than understanding that pastoral care must
be different temporarily — that there can be no visits to
nursing homes or hospitals, that sermons and services
must be offered online, that their family or individual
times of Scripture and prayer have never been more
important, that each member of the royal priesthood has
both an opportunity and an obligation to reach out to
other members by phone, email or notes.
Nearly everyone we serve recognizes that part of the
adjustment we must temporarily make is that the Lord’s
Supper cannot be offered at all or that it can be given
only in a highly restrictive manner.34 Here and there,
however, pastors have had individuals strongly object
to the suspension of public worship and to the “denial”
of the Sacrament. It seems evident that CIH was not in
any way motivated by objections to suspending public
worship. We do wonder, however, if there is not some
sense that without the Lord’s Supper the church cannot
survive. The authors declare: “Out of an abundance
of concern for God’s people, who should not be left
bereft of this sacred gift, some pastors in our Synod
have invited their congregants to partake of the Lord’s
Supper in their homes.”35 The underlying concern here
— the desire for God’s people to receive His precious
gifts — is highly commendable and we share it. But the
phrase “who should not be left bereft of this sacred gift”
34
For example, in a few congregations Communion is offered by having separate families or individuals come on a set schedule to receive.
This practice has not been considered by the CTCR. We should note,
however, that it invites a disparity between those who are fearful or too
vulnerable to come for the Sacrament and those that feel more confident about the practice. It potentially risks disease transmission from
the pastor to communicants while it places the pastor (and therefore
his spouse or family if he is married) at an even more significant risk
of exposure.
35

CIH, 1, emphasis added.

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

|

9. Walking Together: Does it even
matter anymore?

B

ecause “the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or coercive powers,
and with respect to the individual congregation’s
right of self-government it is but an advisory body”
(LCMS Constitution Article VII), congregations are not
bound by anything but the Word of God and need not
follow even a convention resolution that is “inexpedient.” We realize (and emphasize) that this does not apply
to a doctrinal resolution based on God’s Word (Bylaw
1.6.2.a), but at question in this case is a CTCR opinion,
not a resolution of Synod, doctrinal or otherwise.
Some have asked whether CC19’s opinion is binding
on congregations or districts. It is not. The next question
is no doubt this: If not, then is there any reason why
congregations are not able to exercise their Christian
freedom and make use of such means as streaming home
Communion services with a clear conscience? Clearly,
some will do so. That is explicitly stated in CIH:
We are left with a choice. On the one hand, we can
cease celebrating the Lord’s Supper during this
pandemic because our Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations has issued an opinion
that celebrating the Supper in homes while a pastor
speaks Christ’s words over an online stream while his
congregation joins in is inappropriate — a practice
that, in our own opinion, is nowhere forbidden by
Scripture or the Confessions. On the other hand,
while respectfully engaging with and listening to
those who disagree with our position, we can continue celebrating the Lord’s Supper so that God’s people
may receive with joy all that this meal promises and
delivers, heeding Christ’s clear command:
Do this in remembrance of Me. (Luke 22:19)
For these reasons, after thoughtful contemplation
and prayerful consideration, we humbly, confidently,
and faithfully intend to continue to obey Christ’s
command to celebrate His Supper.
|

used in reference to the Lord’s Supper gives us pause.
To be without the Sacrament is a harsh burden for a
believer. To be bereft of it is to be without a treasure
our Lord intends for the church. Yet, it is not a treasure
that is to be treated lightly. It is also not a treasure to be
demanded.
“I Want It All and I Want It Now,” Queen’s classic
rock song, is reflective of much of American culture. We
are all, at our worst, a demanding people who believe
we deserve (or at least need) all that we want. When we
lack something, we often share the sentiment, if not the
words, “I want it all, and I want it now.” This is not the
attitude for a Lutheran communicant. St. Paul soberly
instructs us to examine ourselves before we eat of the
bread and drink of the cup (1 coR. 11:28). We ask, in
all sincerity and Christian charity, whether one worthy
question for self-examination in this context might be
the following: is it possible that our God-pleasing desire
for the Sacrament can become a less-than-God-pleasing demand for the Sacrament that is informed more
by the spirit of our culture than by the Holy Spirit and
His fruits of self-control, self-discipline, self-denial and
self-sacrifice?
Think, for example, of the times when Judah and
Israel were deprived of the presence of Yahweh at the
temple. They longed for the courts of the Lord (ps. 84),
but God’s own judgment meant that they could not
rejoice in God’s dwelling place or witness the atoning
sacrifices offered there until God Himself relented and
brought them back (see 2 chRon. 6:36–39). Still more
trying was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of
the temple (see ps. 137). These judgments were harsh and
the loss of the comfort of the temple a great burden, but
God was working repentance and faith. His grace — the
Word — was sufficient for His suffering people. It was
in that very time that Israel was given the Word through
the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah and others. The
exile led to a new appreciation and reliance on the Word,
the Scriptures and their teachings (see ezRA 8).
Our circumstances are different from Israel’s, but
not entirely dissimilar. We seek no earthly temple
(John 4:21–21) and the sacrifices of Israel have been
fulfilled in the atoning sacrifice of our Lord on Good
Friday (1 John 2:1–2). But we should not deny that this
deadly pestilence is a call to repentance (Luke 13:1–5)
and a call to return to the Lord (JoeL 2:13). We look to
no hills (ps. 121; John 4:20–21) and demand nothing
from God, but we flee for refuge to His mercy (ps. 30:10;
mAtt. 15:22; Luke 18:13).

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

not required? Should every service be a Communion
service? Have we substituted “Luther’s emergency
knows no rule” with “Emergency establishes the rules?”
Further, since technology is so decisive in this practice,
are we saying now that past teachers and positions no
longer hold simply because technology and the desire for
innovation supersedes them?

ONE LITTLE WORD CAN FELL HIM

243

10

It is indeed true that the CTCR opinion in this matter
is not binding. It is also true that during these trying
times we ought to be especially generous toward one another and with those with whom we disagree. For these
reasons, we want to repeat that our concern is offered
in a desire to foster discussion and prayerful consideration. We are members together in the Synod and on
that basis are prayerfully asking that those who read and
contemplate this document not take a step that is already
dividing us simply by being proposed. It will divide us
even more if it is implemented and no doubt provoke
dissension and controversy that will reach beyond this
present health crisis. We ask that all concerned act in a
way that reflects the concerns we have raised in love for
LCMS pastors and church workers and for all of Christ’s
holy people in our Synod.

10. A final word: The purpose of this
precious Sacrament is to create faith,
not raise doubts.

W

e recognize in the authors of CIH the deep
desire, expressed so clearly, to minister
faithfully to their flocks. We appreciate and
share the high value they place on the Lord’s Supper. We
rejoice in our fellowship together in the LCMS. It grieves
us to write these pages. We do not offer these thoughts
to fellow pastors as their “ecclesiastical supervisors” for
that is not the calling of the CTCR or its staff. Our intention is to speak to one another as peers. We speak as
representatives of both seminaries, fellow ministers and
brothers and sisters in Christ in the royal priesthood. We
speak out of deep, conscientious concern over a practice
that we cannot endorse and that we fear may produce
division (and, sadly, already has). We speak on behalf
of the many in our Synod who could not participate in
good conscience in this practice — as pastors, congregations or communicants. Their participation would be
impossible because they could not commune in good
faith. Rather than such Communion strengthening their
faith, it would do the opposite and raise doubts.
We are not able to say with certainty that this
would be an invalid Sacrament, but that is precisely the
problem: we cannot be confident of it either. We would
instead be troubled with the question whether this manner of communing is according to Christ’s institution,
as these 10 reasons attest. We seriously and sincerely
wonder whether (in the language of the Formula) “the
entire external, visible administration of the Supper” is

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH —MISSOURI SYNOD

2023 Convention Workbook

12