LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 167

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 167

Wuereas, The ALS document also has gone beyond what can
legitimately be derived from the Scriptures (which are to be the
only norm for what is to be taught and practiced in the church) by
maintaining that potential communicants are not to be regarded as
individuals only but also as contessors of all that the church bodies
to which they belong teach: therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2001 convention of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod request that the CTCR review the ALS document
in the light of the responses it has received; and be it further

Resolved, That the CTCR revise its study in the light of the bib-
lical and confessional evidence that has been presented by mem-
bers of the Synod; and be it finally

Resolved, That the CTCR share its revised response with the
members of the Synod as expeditiously as possible.

Prince of Peace

Orlando, FL

3-35

To Reevaluate Holy Communion Policy

WHEREAS, Christ instituted the sacrament of His body and blood
to nourish and sustain His people and assure them of His grace:
and

Wuereas, St. Paul defines worthy reception of the body and

blood in terms of self-examination and discernment of the Lord's
body (1 Cor. 11:28-29): and

WHEREAS, Our Lutheran Confessions, in the words of the Small
Catechism, state clearly that one is truly worthy and well prepared
who has faith in the words of Christ: “Given and shed for you for
the remission of sins” (SC VI 10): and

WHEREAS, A practice congruent with Scripture and the Confes-
sions calls tor the Sacrament to be shared with baptized Christians
who repent of their sins, believe the real presence, and sincerely
intend to amend their lives: and

WHEREAS, The current policy of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod outlined in Res. 3-08 of the Synod’s 1995 convention
is restrictive and can become an obstacle to pastoral care: therefore
be it

Resolved, That the current policy be reevaluated (by a task force
appointed by the District Presidents to consist of clergy and laity
representing divergent views on this issue) and a policy be devel-
oped that reflects a more pastoral approach consistent with the
above whereases.

Village
Bronxville, NY

3-36

To Define Terms re Practice of Lord’s Supper

Wuereas, There is confusion in our Synod regarding the use of
the terms “Open Communion,” “Closed Communion,” and “Close
Communion” as these terms are used to describe our Communion
distribution practices; and

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions admonish us not to admit
to our Communion rails those who come uninformed:
It is not our intention to admit to it and to administer it to
those who know not what they seek or why they come (LC V
2):
and

Wuerkas, The Lutheran Confessions also instruct us to take
care that those presenting themselves at our Communion rails be
prepared and worthy recipients:

He is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these
words: Given and shed for you for the remission of sins. But he
who does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and
untit (SC VI 10):

and

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions also admonish us not to
be overly cautious and unduly fearful in our distribution practices
because the Sacrament is wonderfully beneficial to the faithful and
can only be hurtful to those who despise it:

We must never regard the Sacrament as something injurious
trom which we had better flee, bul as a pure, wholesome, com-
forting remedy imparting salvation and comfort, which will cure
you and give you life both in soul and body. Why, then, is it that
we acl as if il were a poison, the eating of which would bring
death? To be sure, it is true thal those who despise it and live in
an unchristian manner receive it to their hurt and damnation (LC
V 68-69):

and

WuHerEAS, 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:

One the one hand, they are not permitted to introduce “Open
Communion’; on the other hand, they must guard against deny-
ing the Sacrament to those Christians for whom Christ has ap-
pointed il (Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics [St. Louis: Con-
cordia, 1953], 3:38 1):

and

WHEREAS, It is, therefore, our intention and practice to admin-
ister the Holy Supper to all who sincerely desire it and have a
proper 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 descriptive of our understanding of proper Com-
munion distribution practice:

|. We do not sanction the practice of “Open Communion,” that
is, the practice that our Communion rails are open to all who pre-
sent themselves without regard for their doctrinal understanding of
the Holy Supper; and

2. We do not sanction the practice of “Closed Communion,”
that is, the practice that our Communion rails are closed to all ex-
cept those who hold denominational affiliation with congregations
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; and

3. We do sanction and encourage the practice of “Close Com-
munton,” that is, the practice that we welcome to our Communion
rails all who are close to us (i.¢., in doctrinal agreement with us) in
our understanding of the Holy Supper and are worthy to receive it.

Zion
Piedmont, CA

3-37

To Define Terms re Exceptions to Close(d) Communion

WHEREAS, The LCMS in convention in 1995 reaffirmed the
doctrine and practice of close(d) Communion; and

WHEREAS, Room was given for exceptions using the terms “sit-
uations of emergency” and “special cases of pastoral care”; and

WHEREAS, There has been great diversity in the understanding
and interpretation of these terms: and

WHEREAS, Some congregations interpret these exceptions in
such a way as to practice what is actually open Communion: and

WHEREAS, The CTCR document “Admission to the Lord’s Sup-
per” (Nov. 1999) again listed the exceptions but did not define
them or give examples of what they meant. thereby continuing the
confusion: therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention direct the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to prepare a study doc-
ument defining and giving cxamples of the terms “situations of
emergency” and “special cases of pastoral care” as they relate to
our doctrine and practice of close(d) Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That this study be sent to the congregations of the
Synod at least 18 months prior to the next synodical convention:
and be it finally

2001 Convention Workbook