LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 93

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Reaction to Dr. MacKenzie’s Essay
“Church Fellowship and the Gospel”
“W.W.L.S”—“What Would Luther Say?”
Dear Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the LCMS,
may the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in the sight of our Lord God, our Rock and
Redeemer; to Christ Jesus be all the glory. Amen! In the
spirit of Dr. Roger Pittelko’s warning, “I come to you as just
a simple parish pastor!”
Thank you, Dr. Mackenzie, for your frank approach to
this vital subject and especially for referencing the 1529
Zwingli/Luther Marburg debate.
To be sure, Christ is the one and only foundation of the
Una Sancta, but here we must consider “church fellowship”
and its unfortunate fractures, addressed by St. Paul in
1 Corinthians 3:10 and following:

what their “commune table” represents—nothing more
than a memorial meal, a symbol. For the sake of the
Gospel, Luther could not do this.
My wife, Margaret, was raised in the Roman Catholic
faith. In college, she questioned a lot, as many do. As we
courted, we discussed “religion,” including the Lord’s Supper and even “close(d) Communion.” She could not appreciate the concept until she was asked to stand in a friend’s
wedding at an Episcopal church. During the rehearsal, the
presiding priest mentioned that the Holy Eucharist (the
Lord’s Supper) would be shared after the exchange of vows.
All were invited to participate. Margaret asked the young
lady next to her if she planned to commune. “Sure,” she
said, “why not?” Margaret asked, “Then you are Episcopalian?” “No,” came the reply, “I used to be Pentecostal, but
now I’m attending a Unitarian church.” Suddenly, it struck
Margaret that she had no spiritual commonality, no unity
of confession whatsoever with this person. How could she
share in a meal that expressed that she did? Margaret did
not go up.
In our permissive, adulterous society, many couples rush
into a “union” of sorts, hardly knowing each other. Likewise, largely on the basis of emotional surges, many people
rush into Holy Communion where, in fact, no unity, no
commitment, really exists. Just as many see nothing wrong
with “casual sex,” there are many who see nothing wrong
with “casual Communion.” Even the secular world is beginning to acknowledge that sex between any two people is
having sex with all of their other sexual encounters. In a
similar fashion, to commune with the church body of the
ELCA is to commune with all other church bodies with
whom ELCA communes, some of whom are of the Reformed
confession that denies “the real presence”! And those LCMS
congregations who openly admit ELCA members to their
altar, they are breaking the bond of their confessional commitment to their own church body.
The Lord’s Supper is not a means to bring about unity
that does not exist. It is an expression of confessional unity
that has been publicly declared (just as in the public pronouncement of a marriage). To sanction the practice of
putting the cart before the horse destroys confessional integrity!
Can a simple blurb in the bulletin establish altar fellowship? In the Small Catechism’s “Christian Questions …
FOR THOSE WHO INTEND TO GO TO THE SACRAMENT,” It states: “After confession and instruction in the
Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the
Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Supper, the pastor
may ask, or one may ask himself:” … then follow the 20
questions for examination. The point is—only after instruction in the basic articles of the Christian faith might one be
prepared to truly “examine himself,” as St. Paul says in
1 Cor. 11. In Jesus’ own ministry, He instituted His holy
meal not at the beginning but at the conclusion of His min-

According to the grace of God which was given to
me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and
another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation
with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
each man’s work will become evident; for the day will
show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the
fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any
man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall
receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he
shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so
as through fire. (New American Standard Bible)

The question is “church fellowship and the Gospel,” and
how do we, as confessional Lutheran Christians, remain
true to that Gospel? If our church body has a love for people
and cares about their spiritual condition, does not the very
Gospel compel us to offer them the solidity of the foundation (for there is no other)?
Once Luther “discovered” THE GOSPEL, the saving
truth of Christ, he staked his whole ministry, life, and hope
of salvation on it. Is this not what Luther would seek, if he
walked into our church today? He’d look to see if we were
“Telling the Good News about Jesus” and celebrating His
“real presence” in our midst. Why could Luther not extend
the hand of fellowship to Zwingli? Zwingli was denying
Christ’s “real presence” in the Sacrament, denying the
Lord’s very forgiveness in the Sacrament, and therefore
denying the Gospel itself.
Today, some print a blurb in the bulletin explaining the
Lord’s Supper in 25 words, more or less. That blurb in the
bulletin invites anyone who might happen to read it—who,
at a glance, thinks he understands and agrees with it — to
come on down, no questions asked. This procedure avoids
“offending” anyone! But Luther ran the risk of offending
Zwingli rather than offending his Lord Jesus. To commune
with Zwingli would deny his Savior’s presence and the
Gospel itself. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:18, “… are
not those who eat the sacrifices, sharers in the altar.” Those
who participate at an altar share in what that altar represents. To commune at a Roman Catholic altar shares in a
“sacrifice” offered up on behalf of dead souls in purgatory.
Luther could not do this. To commune at a Baptist or Presbyterian “altar” denies the real presence of Christ. That’s
93