To Be a Faithful Confessional Church Body with Respect to Communion Practice

WHEREAS, At the 2019 Synod convention in Tampa Bay, Fla., in Resolution 4-11A, “To Encourage the Study of the Doctrine of Close(d) Communion and Faithful Practice in All Congregations,” The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) restated in the whereas es the biblical, confessional practice of closed Communion as its position (Proceedings, 145); and

WHEREAS, Former Concordia Theological Seminary president and current Concordia University System president Dr. Dean Wenthe in his article, “More Than Words,” has since warned—in relation to the death of Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:1–11)—about irreverent eating of the Sacrament when communicants fail to “recognize the Lord’s body” (Dean O. Wenthe, et al., One of the Holy Trinity Suffered for Us: Essays in Honor of William C. Weinrich, 2021 Luther Academy, 11): “… The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.” The account of Uzzah’s death is remarkable for its similarity to St. Paul’s admonition concerning the Lord’s Supper: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood ofthe Lord. Let aperson examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:27–30); and

WHEREAS, Wehavein the book, Closed Communion? Admission to the Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, a collection of articles that shed invaluable light on the long history of the church’s practice of closed Communion throughout the ages and of Lutheranism in particular, and the reasons for it, which collection shows the seriousness with which the church approached the matter of a closed table until the erosion of such practice began over half century ago, so that with respect to Dr. Wenthe’s point in the previous whereas, wehear Dr. Martin Luther say, “Notonly do they who receive it un worthily dishonor the sacrament, but also those who carelessly give it to the unworthy” (p. 54); and we read C.F.W. Walther’s warning which has no less relevance today, whether applied to deceivers or those being deceived (p. 45): One should not rely on the fine-sounding words of the Calvinists because, especially in reference to the doctrine of Communion, they use their words to disguise their beliefs and conceal their errors. With such people, through questions like: “Is the body of Christ in Communion?” “Is He truly present?” “Is He essentially present?”—the fox, as Luther said, has not yet appeared. They will respond to all of them with “yes,” but they will always mean only a spiritual body of Christ. Therefore, one must go further and ask whether also Judas and all the godless receive the true body of Christ orally. They then will deny and will recoil from it with the greatest horror. And in this way they prove that they make the presence of the body of Christ in the Holy Sacrament dependent on faith and deny the presence of the true body of Christ. Furthermore, Luther points out the necessity of instruction in the truth (pp. 57–58): It is very well true that where preachers administer mere bread and wine as the Sacrament there is no more concern about to whom it is administered; or what they understand or believe; or how they perceive it … But we intend to educate Christians and to leave some behind us; for in the Sacrament we administer the body and blood of Christ. We cannot and will not give such a Sacrament to anyone who has not been previously examined as to what he has learned from the Catechism and whether he is willing to abandon the sins which he has done to the contrary. (Warnungsschrift an die zu Frankfurt a. M., sich vor Zwinglischer Lehre und Lehren zu Huten. Luther’s Works, St. Louis Ed., 17:2018.) (Matthew C. Harrison, John T. Pless, Closed Communion? Admission to the Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2017]); and

WHEREAS, The danger is real, the practice of open Communion un loving; for danger extends both to faithful LCMS congregational members and to those Christians visiting from outside our Synod fellowship when the practice of closed Communion is not observed and those un instructed and un examined are welcomed to the Lord’s altar (Carl Fic kens cher II, “Church Fellowship and Telling the Good News about Jesus,” Closed Communion, 2001, 253; Ernie Lassman, “1 Corinthians 11:29—‘Discerning the Body’ and its Implications for Close(d) Communion,” Logia, 1994, 333–39); and

WHEREAS, It is our goal as those who “walk together” not only “that all pastors and members of the LCMS recognize the Scriptural and practical necessity of adhering publicly to both a professed and functional closed Communion practice” (2019 Proceedings, 145; emphasis added), but that all pastors and officers of Synod indeed do so publicly adhere; and

WHEREAS, Our Lord has given our Synod a fourth year between conventions, that any and all members of Synod as pastors, and especially as district presidents who shall “cause the resolutions of Synod to be implemented” (Bylaw 4.4.2 [a]) and Circuit Visitors all of whom are expected to be “conversant with and supportive of” the Synod’s resolutions (Bylaw 5.2.3 [e]), “might study God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions … with an eye to teaching and upholding our confession and practice regarding the administration of the Lord’s Supper” (2019 Proceedings, 145); and

WHEREAS, The lackluster practice of open Communion these past 50+ years within the Synod, which practice necessarily teaches a pastor’s con greg ants that there is neither danger nor serious difference in the teachings of Reformed, Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and other church bodies on the matter of our Lord Jesus’ last will and testament in His institution of the Last Supper, or in other matters of doctrine and practice, has turned our Synod into a lukewarm religious body and, no doubt, has contributed to the losses within our Synod; and

WHEREAS, The practice of open Communion is a sin against Jesus Christ and “the new Covenant in His blood,” which sin surely compares to, if not exceeds, sins against the Lord’s covenant with Israel in the Old Testament, one of which being that of Achan, regarding banned goods at Jericho, as Adolph Harstad describes in his commentary: Achan’s act removed a condition of the sacred contract and sent covenant blessings and Israelite blood spilling to the ground. His radical disobedience was like kicking a leg out from under a banquet table and destroying the feast for all…The sin of the one man Achan poisons the whole nation … (Adolph Harstad, Joshua, [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004], 304). How many LCMS pastors today open the table to un instructed and un examined participants? More than one. In some circuits, in some districts, well over half. Then Joshua ripped to pieces his clothes and fell on His face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. Then the Lord said to Joshua: “Get yourself up! Why this, you falling on your face? Israel sinned. Yes, they have transgressed my covenant which I commanded them …” (Joshua 7:6, 10–11; Harstad translation, 308, emphasis added). Only one out of all the host of Israel’s fighting men sinned, and yet the Lord holds all of them accountable. “The plural pronoun ‘they’ again shows that the Lord holds all Israel guilty. He is not satisfied that almost all the Israelites have honored the covenant conditions.” Jesus has entrusted the new covenant in His blood to His Church, and has made those He has sent to be “stewards of the mysteries of God.” By God’s grace both the Supper’s right practice, instruction regarding its blessings, and defense against error were a major part of the Lutheran Reformation and continue to be a lasting treasure uniquely safe-guarded in the public confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in which confession the LCMS joins and is a part (if before God her practice will allow it). Harstad writes, “… Achan had committed the one sin that is both a transgression of the covenant andasacrilege.”In what category was that sin? “It denotes a violation of moral and spiritual values that is outrageously offensive and disgraceful” (Harstad, 313–14). And how can we judge the sin of open Communion, in which pastors not only allow un instructed Christians to partake of the Lord’s body to their judgment (Gr. krima), but in many cases invite the un instructed and un examined to come; and

WHEREAS, It is time—having given years and years for study, Koinonia, consideration, and reconsideration of our Synod’s closed Communion position in the light of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions; therefore be it

Resolved, That in the fear of the Lord, who by His shed blood poured out for us in the Holy Supper forgives our sins, all LCMS pastors (re)commit to a careful, principled administration of the Sacrament of the Altar in love for the instructed and for the un instructed, and, because all share in the sin of even one, with repentant hearts amend their ways and walk up rightly, knowing that “all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Heb. 4:13; verse quoted by Harstad, 316); and be it further

Resolved, That those exercising ecclesiastical authority among us oversee the pastors under their supervision that their practice be in keeping with our Synod’s oft stated position of closed Communion and that they refrain from communing any from outside our fellowship until and unless they are instructed and examined and renounce their former error and separate themselves from the erring church body of which they area part,with the prayer that no pastors or leaders harden themselves against this godly practice; and be it further

Resolved, That for the sake of unity and in keeping with Synod Bylaw 5.2.3 (e) all circuit visitors demonstrate by their conformity to the synodwide resolutions on closed Communion that they are “conversant with and supportive of” these resolutions to the glory of Christ’s name and the good of His Church; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod President with the Council of Presidents and both of Synod’s seminary faculties begin an immediate re-evaluation of the specific language of earlier Communion resolutions regarding “emergency” situations and “extra-ordinary” circumstances (esp. 1967 Res. 2-19, “To Take a Position with Reference to Communing Lutherans of Other Synods,” [Proceedings, 93] and 1986 Res. 3-08, “To Maintain Practice of Close Communion” [Proceedings, 143]), as to its validity: providing clarity as to legitimate examples of each, and of such examples that shall not be considered so, and that such re- evaluation be published for consideration by Synod’s members within the year.