LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 371

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 371

thereby receive God’s judgment. But the second reason has to do
with the need for a fitting confessional unity among those who
commune together. Roman Catholic Christians, for example, may
be perfectly prepared to receive the Lord’s Supper in their own
churches in a worthy manner and so to their own great blessing.
But it would be unfitting for them, as confessors of their church
body’s error, to receive the Sacrament in our churches.

2. Question: Why are we so unfriendly? When we tell some
Christians that they can’t commune with us, it seems so unfriendly!

Answer: It is probably inevitable that, when we ask people—
including some fellow Christians—not to commune at our altars,
some may conclude that we are “unfriendly.” This is why it is so
important that we explain ourselves and our teaching to others who,
quite frankly, may not understand it at all. But when we explain,
with genuine interest and friendliness, our doctrine that the Lord’s
Supper is both a gift and a sign of unity, others will come to see
that we do what we do not because we are unfriendly but because
of what we firmly believe.

3. Question: What about our mobile society? “Snowbirds”
spend months away from their home congregations, and many peo-
ple travel overseas and around the country. Doesn’t that change the
way we should think about admission to the Lord’s Supper?

Answer: Vacations and brief periods of travel ordinarily do not
create any particular situation of intense spiritual need or crisis.
When visitors from other church bodies come to our churches or
when our own members attend worship out of town at other
churches, there is normally no pressing reason to override their
identity as “confessors” of a certain doctrine.

The case of “snowbirds” or others who are away from their
home congregations for long periods of time raises a more difficult
question. It would be a difficult situation indeed for a Christian to
be bereft of the Lord’s Supper for many months or even years. If in
such a situation a pastor’s discretion led him to admit members
from other churches to the Lord’s Supper at an LCMS congrega-
tion, it would have to be done after much discussion and discern-
ment, and with the understanding that the “long-term visitor” was
in agreement with our doctrine and had placed himself under the
pastoral care of our pastor. Moreover, the future confession of the
“long-term visitor” should be an item of discussion.

4, Question: What about relatives who are very close to us but
who are members of other church bodies? On special occasions
such as baptisms, confirmations, or weddings, can’t they be admit-
ted to the Lord’s Supper if they have genuine faith and repentance?

Answer: This question is often a very difficult and sensitive
one on an emotional level, because we fee/ united with those whom
we love—and all the more when they are fellow Christians! As
powerful as those feelings can be, however, they must not override
the spiritual realities involved. The situation can be eased if we can
talk with our friends and relatives openly and lovingly about the
differences that divide orthodox Lutheran churches from heterodox
Christian churches. Many Christians may not even be aware of the
differences, and such discussions would be of benefit to all.

5. Question: Well, when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He
communed Judas, didn’t He? How can we dare exclude anyone, if
the Lord gave His Supper even to the man who betrayed Him?

Answer: We cannot determine with certainty on the basis of
the Gospel accounts whether or not Judas was present at the insti-
tution of the Lord’s Supper. But even if he were present, we cannot
take all the historical details of the institution of the Eucharist as
patterns that we must follow today. If we did so, we might have to
conclude that only a certain inner circle of Christians should re-
ceive the Lord’s Supper, for only the Twelve were present that
night. Or, on the assumption that Judas was not repentant (since
Satan had already entered into him, Luke 22:3), we could conclude
that unrepentant persons should be welcomed to the Eucharist. One
can see the specific errors that are created when we try to make the
historically unique aspects of the institution of the Lord’s Supper
into patterns or policies.

On the positive side, however, the historical example of Judas
could well reinforce the sound pastoral principle that pastors are

not expected or required (or even able) to judge the hearts of com-
municants. Judas was a hypocrite, one who presented himself as a
believer on the outside but was an unbeliever in his heart (cf. FC
SD VII, 60; Tappert. 580).

6. Question: I understand and support our teaching on admis-
sion to the Lord’s Supper, but it bothers me that no one else has
the same perspective. Why are we so different?

Answer: As a matter of fact, our teaching stands in line with
the history of the Christian church and with the majority of Chris-
tendom to this day. Both the Roman Catholic church® and the Or-
thodox churches teach something very similar to what our Synod
does regarding admission to the Lord’s Supper. In North America,
however, the Protestant churches that do not accept the truth that all
who eat and drink the Eucharist eat and drink the body and blood of
Christ with their mouths have had an inordinate amount of influ-
ence in the thinking and practices of many churches today. Such
churches have lost the understanding of the seriousness of harm
that threatens a communicant who does not discern the body and
blood of Christ. Therefore, these churches are less likely to ask, out
of love, that such people refrain from participation.

7. Question: Well, how much correct doctrine does a person
have to know in order to be able to commune “worthily’”’?

Answer: The question confuses the two ways of looking at a
communicant. As individuals, we do not receive the Sacrament
worthily because we know a certain “laundry list” of correct doc-
trines. Repentance, faith in Christ’s words in and about the Sacra-
ment, and the desire for repentant living in unity with one’s fellow
communicant are the components of communing in a worthy fash-
ion.

But communicants are also confessors and members of church
bodies. As such, it is not merely what the individual knows that is
in view. It is the doctrine confessed by his or her church body that
is the important thing. We ask those who join our church if they
accept the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions even though they
may have only studied the Small Catechism. In a similar manner.
members of other churches who are heterodox in their confession
have bound themselves to a confession, even though they may not
know all of its content.

8. Question: What is the “passing of the peace”? What does
this custom, increasingly common in our congregations, mean?

Answer: The “passing of the peace” is a modern application of
the ancient custom known as the “kiss of peace” (see Rom. 16:16).
Although some perhaps see this as a mere token of friendship and
friendliness, its historic meaning could be understood, taught, and
received for great blessing in our churches. As practiced in the an-
cient church, the “kiss of peace” was a “mutual greeting of the
faithful in the Eucharistic liturgy, as a sign of their Jove and union.
It is first mentioned by St. Justin Martyr (2nd cent.) and is probably
a usage of the Apostolic period (cf. Rom. 16:16, | Pet. 5:14,
etc.)."*” Those who were to commune together first showed a sign
of their mutual faith, love, forgiveness, and unity. The teaching
value of this ancient custom, given our current setting where Chris-
tians often see themselves as “free-standing individuals,” is evi-
dent. When individual communicants approach the Lord’s Supper,
it is not only a matter between themselves and their Lord. Rather,
the relationship of love and unity with the fellow communicant is
equally in view and must also be preserved with equal dedication.
Understood properly. the unity that is expressed is not mere friend-
ship or even love, but a spiritual unity based on a common faith
and confession.

Notes

1. 1998 Resolution 3-05 “To Reaffirm Our Practice of Admis-
sion to the Lord’s Supper,” Convention Proceedings, 115.

2. The standard treatment of the practice of the early church is
Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four
Centuries, trans N. E. Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1966). Evidence for current official teaching in the Roman
Catholic fellowship may be found in Catechism of the Catholic

2001 Convention Workbook