Res. 5-05 — To Address Open Communion and Pastoral Exceptions in Extraordinary Circumstances

WHEREAS, Holy Scripture teaches clearly that the Lord’s Supper is the true body and blood of Christ (Matt. 26:26–8 29; Mark 14:22– 25; Luke 22:15– 20; 1 Cor. 11:23– 26), and that those who receive the body and blood of Christ are to examine themselves, lest they eat and drink the Lord’s Supper unworthily and bring judgment upon themselves (1 Cor.11:27–32); and

WHEREAS, According to the Lutheran Confessions, “The people are instructed more regularly and with the greatest diligence concerning the holy sacrament, to what purpose it was instituted, and how it is to be used, namely, as a comfort to terrified consciences. In this way, the people are drawn to Communion and to the Mass. At the same time, they are also instructed about other, false teaching concerning the sacrament” (AC XXIV [Kolb -Wengert]), and “the custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not previously been examined and absolved” (AC XXV [Tappert, German]); and

WHEREAS, Synod in convention has repeatedly and consistently affirmed the teaching and practice of closed Communion, which entails that “except in situations of emergency or in special cases of pastoral care” we “commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with us” (1969 Res. 2- 12, “To Give Further Study to Communion Practices”; 1986 Res. 3-08, “To Maintain Practice of Close Communion”;1995 Res. 3- 08, “To Reaffirm the Practice of Close[d] Communion”; 1998 Res. 3-05, “To Reaffirm Our Practice of Admission to the Lord’s Supper”; 2013 Res. 4 -10, “To Encourage Proper Oversight in Administration of Lord’s Supper by Visitation from Ecclesiastical Supervisors”; 2016 Res. 5- 15, “To Address Questions re the Sacrament of the Altar”; 2019 Res. 4 -11A, “To Encourage the Study of the Doctrine of Close[d] Communion and Faithful Practice in All Congregations”; 2023 Res. 5- 09, “To Review Guidance on Admission to the Lord’s Supper”); and

WHEREAS, There has been conversation within Synod over the distinction between “close Communion” and “closed Communion,” implying that they are different teachings or practices; and

WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) in its 1983 report, Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper , has affirmed that the two terms refer to the same teaching and practice: “While the term ‘Closed Communion’ has a longer history ... and is regarded by some as theologically more proper than ‘Close Communion,’ the latter term, which has been used in more recent history by writers in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, may also properly be employed as a way of saying that confessional agreement must precede the fellowship of Christians at the Lord’s Table. Whatever term is used, it is clear that the LCMS’s official practice is consistent with the historic practice of the church, which has regarded unity of doctrine as a prerequisite for admission to the sacrament” (20); and

WHEREAS, There has also been conversation within Synod, especially among the Council of Presidents (COP) and the seminaries, over “the language of earlier Communion resolutions regarding extraordinary circumstances” and requests for “case studies and examples” that lend clarity to such circumstances (2023 Res. 5- 09); and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in its 1999 report, Admission to the Lord’s Supper: Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching, has acknowledged that there can be “rare and genuinely difficult situations of unusual personal need and pastoral care” (47), yet that “it will never be possible to compile a list of ‘acceptable exceptions,’” (48); and

WHEREAS, At the same time, the report states that, while “the Synod has always recognized this ... 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 necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care’” (48); and

WHEREAS, In those rare cases of pastoral exception, the pastor takes on the grave burden of pastoral care toward those whom he communes, assuming responsibility before God for their worthy reception of the body and blood of Christ and for the confession of their lips; and

WHEREAS, The practice commonly referred to as “functionally open Communion” occurs when “the determination of who is an appropriate recipient (and not merely a ‘worthy’ recipient) of the Lord’s Supper is left exclusively in the hands of the individual contemplating eating and drinking, and when the church’s concern is limited to an individual’s worthiness without further consideration of that person’s confession,” such that professed adherence to closed Communion is rendered meaningless by actual practice (Joel D. Biermann, “Step Up to the Altar: Thinking about the Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 no. 2 [2008]: 153); therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention again affirm its longstanding commitment to the biblical and confessional teaching concerning closed Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod clarify that the terms “close Communion” and “closed Communion,” as used in documents of the Synod, are synonymous and pertain to the same aforementioned teaching and practice; and be it further

Resolved, That the pastors of our Synod, as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1), who are charged to watch over souls as those who must give an account (Heb. 13:17) and commanded to warn, instruct, examine, and withhold the Sacrament when necessary for the good of souls (1 Cor. 11:27– 29; Titus 1:7–9), be urged pastorally and through sound catechesis to teach, exhort, practice, and defend closed Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the pastors of our Synod, as members of the ministerium of the Church, be urged to act charitably, seeking to put the best construction on everything as they observe and discuss Communion practice with each other and in their various contexts; and be it further

Resolved, That the President of Synod and the COP, as ecclesiastical supervisors, continue to be faithful in upholding the existing constitutional and bylaw provisions concerning unionism and sacramental practice and the Synod’s position on closed Communion as articulated in numerous doctrinal resolutions; and be it further

Resolved, That vacancy pastors, intentional interim pastors, circuit visitors, and district presidents be urged to assist congregations in improving communion practices, where necessary, prior to the issuance of calls; and be it finally

Resolved, That our pastors be encouraged to receive with joy the guidance and admonition provided by their ecclesiastical supervisors, especially in cases where congregations or pastors have been indiscriminate in their Communion practice; and be it finally

Resolved, That the CTCR provide the Synod with a study document that addresses extraordinary circumstances and pastoral exceptions to closed Communion, including case studies and study questions.