LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 168

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

168 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

3-44

To Clarify Synod’s Practice of Close(d) Communion

WHEREAS, The LCMS conventions from 1967 through 1995
have repeatedly reaffirmed the Synod’s historic position of close(d)
Communion; and

WHEREAS, These resolutions state that in some “special cases”
and in “extraordinary circumstances” a pastor may commune
someone who is a member of a denomination not in fellowship
with the LCMS; and

WHEREAS, The current practice of many congregations publicly
inviting all baptized Christians who believe in the real presence and
who agree with our doctrine to commune (regardless of their
church affiliation) makes what we agree should be ‘“‘special” and
“extraordinary” to be common and ordinary; therefore be it

Resolved, That publicly inviting all baptized Christians who be-
lieve in the real presence and agree with our doctrine—even though
they are not members of a Missouri Synod congregation—is con-
trary to our official position of close(d) Communion and is to be
discontinued.

Trinity
Austin, TX

3-45

To Practice Close, or Closed, Communion
in All Congregations of Synod

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s practice of
close, or closed, Communion calls for its congregations and pas-
tors to, under ordinary circumstances, commune only those who
are Communicant members in good standing of congregations of
the LCMS or of church bodies in full altar and pulpit fellowship
with the LCMS; and

WHEREAS, Our practice recognizes the existence of cases of pas-
toral exceptions to the standard of LCMS fellowship as being a fac-
tor in Communion reception; and

WHEREAS, The understanding of “exceptions” includes the fact
that such cases would, by definition, be very rarely occurrent and
not at all the rule; and

WHEREAS, Many congregations of our Synod have stated Holy
Communion policies explaining our practice, published in bul-
letins, in newsletters, on Web sites, on Communion registration
cards, etc.; and

WHEREAS, Many of the listed statements clearly set forth our
doctrine and practice faithfully, including emphasis on the expec-
tation of LCMS affiliation; and

Wuereas, Many other such statements avoid a definite expec-
tation of LCMS affiliation among those who commune, preferring
to state a few basic doctrinal truths, and inviting all Christians who
agree to come forward and receive, regardless of affiliation, thereby
creating a situation of open Communion; and

WHEREAS, In many circles, the term close is preferred over
closed in description of our doctrine and practice, with the result
(whether or not intended) of open Communion; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2007 LCMS convention reaffirm our scrip-
tural and historical practice of close, or closed, Communion; and
be it further

Resolved, That the 2007 LCMS convention further affirm that
whether the term close or closed is desired for use by pastors, con-
gregations, etc., to describe our practice, it is to be understood,
nonetheless, that open Communion is still excluded from the prac-
tice of our Synod and congregations; and be it further

Resolved, That cases of pastoral exception to close, or closed,
Communion are to be recognized as such a rarity that congrega-
tions can and should still spell out a Communion policy expecting
LCMS affiliation of communicants, which, in turn, is then adhered
to faithfully; and be it further

Resolved, That the congregations of our Synod, in any state-
ment on Communion fellowship, clearly set forth the expectation of
LCMS affiliation in light of the previous “Resolved”; and be it fi-
nally

Resolved, That the officials of our Synod’s districts be attentive
to this matter in the congregations under their watch and ensure
that each congregation practices close, or closed, Communion ac-
cording to our Synod’s position, including in the matter of LCMS
affiliation of those who commune.

Trinity
Clinton, MA

3-46

To Direct District Presidents to Visit
Congregations re Closed Communion

Doctrine and Practice

WHEREAS, Article II of the Constitution of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod expects not just agreement in doctrine,
but also agreement in practice when it says that “The Synod, and
every member of the Synod, accepts without reservation: 1. The
Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written Word
of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice; 2. All the
Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true
and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of
God...”; and

WHEREAS, The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church (that is, the Lutheran Confessions) state in the Formula of
Concord, Solid Declaration X 31, “Churches will not condemn one
another because of dissimilarity of ceremonies when, in Christian
liberty, one has less or more of them, provided they otherwise are
in unity with one another in doctrine and all its articles, and also in
the right use of the Sacraments”; and

WHEREAS, Synod President Dr. A. L. Barry said, “It is precisely
for the sake of unity in both doctrine and practice among us, that
our Synod adopts doctrinal resolutions that affirm and carry out our
commitment to the truth of the Word of God and the Lutheran Con-
fessions” (Convention Proceedings, 1998, Report of the President,
Part IH, p. 61); and

Whereas, Synod President Dr. A. L. Barry said, “When I am
made aware of a doctrinal concern with one of our congregations or
church workers, I make every effort to inform the district president
and encourage him to take appropriate action to resolve the con-
cern in a manner in keeping with our scriptural and confessional
positions. I have repeatedly underscored with our district presidents
how important it is for all of us to uphold the Synod’s doctrinal
positions. Not to do so will only resuit in division among us and
will fi r desire to reach out boldly with the Gospel”
(underline added) (Convention Proceedings, 1998, Report of the
President, Part I, p. 54); and

Synod’s Position on Closed Communion

WHEREAS, Our Synod in convention still maintains in its offi-
cial writings a scripturally correct position on closed communion.

1. In the 1983 CTCR document Theology and Practice of The
Lord’s Supper, it says,

The practice of refusing Communion to certain Christians and the
general population at Lutheran altars is called close Communion. This
practice serves the Gospel, and even those refused, by its reverence for
our Lord’s last will and testament....Since fellowship at the Lord’s
Table is also confession of a common faith, it would not be truthful for
those who affirm the Real Presence and those who deny it to join one
another. Their common Communion would indicate to the non-Chris-
tian community that the last will and testament of Christ could be
interpreted in contradictory ways. Indeed, the non-Christian might
rightly ask whether it was Jesus’ word which determined the church’s
position and practice or simply a human consensus....Close Commu-
nion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith where
there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement. It would be neither faithful
to the Scriptural requirements for admission to Holy Communion
(1 Cor. 11:27 ff.; cf. 10:16-17) nor helpful to fallen humanity if the