LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 369

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 369

ple) the Lutheran doctrine of baptism and still wanted to join the
congregation.

Fourth, unless individual Christians can be seen as “confessors”
of their church body’s doctrine, Scripture’s teaching concerning
altar and pulpit fellowship as historically confessed by the LCMS
becomes virtually meaningless. It is true that one could maintain
that on the denominational or even congregational levels, there
should not be joint communion services. But if any of the individ-
uals in those services could—at least in theory and under ordinary
circumstances—commune together, then the formal practice would
be emptied of all real meaning.

Fifth and finally, the crucial passage, 1 Cor. 11:17-34, places
only a minor emphasis (at least explicitly) on the need for doctrinal
unity among those who commune together. But we must remember
that Paul is dealing with an intra-congregational situation and that
elsewhere in the letter he corrects the Corinthians’ errors in mat-
ters of both doctrine and personal morality. Moreover, the apostle
quite emphatically states that those who commune at the Lord’s
Table are engaging in an act of proclamation: it is the Lord’s death
that they are proclaiming until he comes again. Heterodox teach-
ing threatens and contradicts to a greater or lesser extent the pure
proclamation of the death of Christ for us, even as the Corinthians’
social and personal divisions at their community meals also con-
tradicted the Lord’s death for them all. The Eucharist is the con-
gregation’s sacrament of unity. Differences of confession cannot
be a matter of indifference when seeking the unity presupposed by
the Lord’s Supper. the very unity that the Supper is given to main-
tain and preserve.

“Christians as Individuals” in Other Church Bodies

Significant dangers threaten when the church succumbs to the
modern spirit and regards the official confession of an individual
Christian as a matter of no importance. But these are not the only
dangers that threaten and the LCMS has always recognized this.
Even as the LCMS’ biblical and confessional teaching has denied
admission to the Lord’s Supper to those of a different confession,
the Synod has also consistently held that there can be exceptions
to this ordinary way of proceeding and that such exceptions are best
left up to ad hoc pastoral discretion. Why is this so? This is be-
cause of the dangers that emerge should our pastors and congrega-
tions view individual Christians of differing confessions only as
“confessors” and not at all as “individuals.” We can list at least
four of these dangers.

First, if Christians are viewed only as “confessors,” then de-
nominational membership can become a substitute for genuine faith
as the sole requirement for worthy communing. This position is
hard to maintain, for as the periodic surveys show and as every
honest person already knows, some official members of the LCMS
do not understand, cannot articulate, and tragically do not believe
our own doctrine. A simplistic use of “denominational member-
ship” as the sole criterion for communion admission, unaccompa-
nied by exhortation and teaching, would be a caricature of biblical
and confessional teaching.

In the second place, if individual communicants are viewed
only as “confessors,” the temptation arises to ask “how orthodox”
their confession is. Even in the case of members of our own con-
gregations, pastors who view communicants in this way and only in
this way might be tempted to conduct “interviews of theological
orthodoxy” and to ban from the Lord’s Supper those who cannot
give a “good” confession or one that is “good enough.” This kind
of approach shifts the entire matter of confession away from the
church body onto the shoulders of the individual in an extreme and
dangerous way.

Third, viewing communicants only as confessors of official
doctrine runs the danger of intellectualizing “faith in these words”
(cf. SC VI, 5-10; Tappert, 352). The cognitive and intellectual ele-

ment of faith is present, of course. But the simple faith by which
the Christian becomes a worthy communicant is not a matter of
theological sophistication and precise articulation. Such faith is the
heart’s trust in the words of Christ and in the saving gifts He of-
fers through his own Supper.

Fourth and perhaps most important, if individual Christians are
viewed only as confessors of the ecclesiastical doctrine with which
they are associated, there may result an unwillingness on the part of
our pastors to struggle with those rare and genuinely difficult situ-
ations of unusual personal need and pastoral care. In times of emer-
gency, of war, of severe illness or intense personal crisis, and in
situations involving individuals who are in a state of confession,’
we must be willing to search for the balance between personal faith
and need on the one hand, and the corporate dimensions and unity
implied in and demanded by the Lord’s Supper on the other hand.
This willingness to deal with individuals reflects the view found in
the Preface to the Book of Concord that individual members of het-
erodox church bodies may nevertheless be open to the biblical and
confessional teaching about the Lord’s Supper:

But we have no doubt at all that one can find many pious, innocen! peo-

ple even in those churches which have up to now admittedly noi come

to agreement with us. These people go their way in the simplicity of
iheir hearts, do not understand the issues, and take no pleasure in blas-
phemies against the Holy Supper as it is celebrated in our churches ac-
cording to Christ’s institution and as we concordantly teach about it on
the basis of the words of his testament. It is furthermore to be hoped
that when they are rightly instructed in this doctrine, they will, through
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, turn to the infallible truth of the divine

Word and unite with us and our churches and schools. (Preface; Tap-

pert, 11-12)

It will never be possible to compile a list of “acceptable excep-
tions.” Life in this present evil age will not allow for such simplic-
ity and precision. The Synod has always recognized this and we
must allow the tension to remain. We must engage one another in
respectful mutual conversation over the controverted specifics of
the “situations of emergency, and special cases of pastoral care, or
extraordinary situations and circumstances” which call for “the ne-
cessity of exercising responsible pastoral care.”

II. A CRITIQUE OF A DECLARATION
OF EUCHARISTIC UNDERSTANDING
AND PRACTICE

We may now offer, on the basis of the preceding study, a spe-
cific critique of A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and
Practice, pointing out how it is not “an adequate basis for address-
ing questions about admission to the Lord’s Supper” (1998 Res.
3-05). DEUP is quoted below in capital letters, with a brief critique
indented in regular characters.

AS MEMBERS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI
SYNOD DESIRING TO SUPPORT THE MISSION OF THE
SYNOD AND TO BE FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE AND THE
LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS, WE DECLARE THE FOLLOW-
ING TO BE OUR EUCHARISTIC UNDERSTANDING AND
PRACTICE:

1. CHRIST INSTITUTED THE SACRAMENT OF HIS
BODY AND BLOOD TO NOURISH AND SUSTAIN HIS PEO-
PLE AND ASSURE THEM OF HIS GRACE.

This first thesis is certainly correct. Yel, in | Corinthians 10 and 11

Paul gives pride of place to the Sacrament’s purpose to maintain the
unity of lhose who commune. No mention of this occurs in DEUP,
which prejudices the issue by focusing solely on the individual. The Eu-
charist’s corporate implications for intra~-congregational practice and
inter-confessional relationships are immense. DEUP fails to mention
this necessary corporate unity of those who commune together.

2. SAINT PAUL DEFINES WORTHY RECEPTION OF THE
BODY AND THE BLOOD IN TERMS OF SELF-EXAMINA-
TION AND DISCERNMENT OF THE LORD’S BODY
(1 CORINTHIANS 11:28-29).

2001 Convention Workbook