LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 156

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

156 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

rails all who are close to us (i.e.. in doctrinal agreement with us), in
our understanding of the Holy Supper and are worthy to receive it.
Zion

Piedmont, CA

3-08

To Develop Uniform and Responsible Policy
for Admission to Lord’s Supper

WHEREAS, There is confusion in our Synod regarding what con-
stitutes a uniform and responsible policy for determining admis-
sion to Communion rails; and

Wuereas, Other Lutherans of an earlier time also wrestled with
this question and found a workable resolution in the Krauth Rule of
1872 (which was later adopted by the General Council in 1875 as
the Galesburg Rule): “1) The Rule is:...Lutheran altars are for
Lutheran communicants only. 2) The exceptions to the rule belong
to the sphere of privilege and not of right. 3) The determination of
the exceptions is to be made in consonance with these principles
by the conscientious judgment of pastors, as these cases arise.”
(Wolf, Documents of Lutheran Unity in America, Fortress Press,
1966. p. 78); and

WHEREAS, Our Synod teaches that it is an improper policy to
deny the Holy Supper to anyone based on denominational affilia-
tion alone, as our textbooks advise our congregations: “. . . they
must guard against denying the Sacrament to those Christians for
whom Christ has appointed it.” (Francis Pieper, Christian Dog-
matics, vol. 3, Concordia Publishing House, 1953, p. 381 ); and

WuEeREAS, It is. therefore, our intention and practice to admin-
ister the Holy Supper to all who sincerely desire it and have a
proper (Lutheran) understanding of it (that is, they know what they
seek and why they come); therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopt
the following as a uniform and responsible policy for admitting
communicants to our Communion rails:

1. Our policy is: Lutheran altars are for Lutheran communicants
only.

2. The exceptions to the policy belong to the sphere of privilege
and not of right.

3. The determination of the exceptions is to be made in conso-
nance with these principles by the conscientious judgment of pas-
tors, as these cases arise.

Zion
Piedmont, CA

3-09

To Provide Clarity of Definition to Terms Associated
with Lord's Supper

WHEREAS, There exists a widespread lack of unanimity within
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod with respect to the pas-
toral/congregational practice of administering the Lord’s Supper;
and

WHEREAS. It is highly desirable to increase the level of brotherly
discussion and unity with respect to this important aspect of our
worship practice; and

WHEREAS, It is nearly impossible to continue brotherly discus-
sions regarding the Lord’s Supper due to a lack of mutual under-
standing regarding the terms associated with the Lord’s Supper,
(i.e., open Communion. close Communion, and closed Commu-
nion) which has caused even more confusion as attempts are made
to address this issue; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention adopt the following de-
finitions for the terms associated with the discussion of the Lord’s
Supper:

Closed Communion: That pastoral/congregational practice in
which only those members of a specific congregation are invited
to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Close Communion: That pastoral/congregational practice in
which only those who hold a common and scriptural understanding
regarding the nature and benefits of the Lord’s Supper are invited
to participate in the Lord’s Supper.

Open Communion: That pastoral/congregational practice in
which a general invitation is given to all in attendance without any
expectation as to the existence of a common understanding of the
nature and benefits of the Lord’s Supper; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod strongly encourage all individuals,
pastors, and agencies of Synod to use these definitions in order to
foster improved communications with respect to our discussions
regarding the Lord’s Supper.

Our Savior
Pagosa Springs, CO

3-10

To Reaffirm and Clarify Synod’s
Closed Communion Policy

WHEREAS, Reports of worship fellowship with those who are
not in doctrinal agreement with The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod continue to trouble the church; and

WHEREAS, The closed Communion practices of the Synod have
been under attack in some quarters; and

WHEREAS, The practice of closed Communion (clarification:
“closed Communion” being the ancient and proper term for the
practice of Communion of those in close or doctrinal fellowship;
“closed” referring to the doors that were closed after the noncom-
municants were dismissed in the early church and standing in op-
position to “open” or indiscriminate Communion) is a part of the
Synod’s fellowship practices; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures do not teach that Holy Communion
is necessary to salvation; rather that this is but one of three means
of grace which God has given for His church to use wisely; and

WHEREAS, The synodical Constitution (Art. III) recognizes the
mandate of St. Paul to mark those who cause divisions and offenses
contrary to the doctrine which we have learned and avoid them
(Rom. 16:17); therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in con-
vention assembled reaffirm its position on closed Communion; and
be it further

Resolved, That those who are not members of the LCMS or of a
church body with which the Synod is in full doctrinal fellowship
are not to be communed except in very exceptional circumstances
(clarification: “Exceptional circumstances” shall be understood as
terror of conscience upon facing death as a result of battle or med-
ical treatments without benefit of clergy of one’s own denomina-
tion. It is also assumed that the communicant would accept the real
presence of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine as well
as other fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the
Trinity, original sin, the deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc.); and
be it further

Resolved, That the implementation of this consistent practice
shall be a top priority of the District Presidents who are responsible
for supervision of doctrine and practice of pastors and congrega-
tions in the Districts; and be it further

Resolved, That the District Presidents report to the synodical
President semiannually on the measures they have taken to collec-
tively encourage proper Communion practices in their Districts;
and be it finally

Resolved, That the synodical President shall have the authority
to inquire concerning individual cases that may have come to his
office’s attention and to direct corrective measures through the
President of that District, since the District President is the Synod’s
representative in that locale.

Our Redeemer
Forsyth, IL