Communion refused?
Posted on February 6th, 2013
One of the thorniest issues any LCMS pastor has to deal with is admission to the Lord’s Table. As pastor of a congregation in the inner suburbs of a major metropolitan area that sees frequent visitors for work, military service, and vacation, I’ve had all of the following kinds of experiences, sometimes on the same Sunday:
- Someone communes and I later realize I should not have allowed it
- Someone refrains from communing when I would have allowed it
- Someone is discretely asked about their church membership and/or confession but takes offense even when they are admitted to the communion
- Someone is given a blessing instead of the Sacrament but is profoundly gracious about it
There are numerous issues at work, but the most challenging is the utter disconnect between our culture’s emphasis on individual piety vs. the concern of closed communion practice with church membership/fellowship among churches.
Photo: Catholic News Service
Thus I read with interest Dr. Robert Benne’s piece “The March for Life and the Tale of Three Lutheran Churches.” Benne—who delivered a fine paper at the LCMS Life Conference held in conjunction with the March for Life—sounds a note of displeasure regarding the communion practice of the LCMS as observed at the Divine Service before the March for Life:
What about the LCMS? The traditionalists who prevailed in the great divisions of the late 60s and early 70s in the LCMS, chronicled dramatically by James Burkee in his Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod, purged the LCMS of theological and political liberals. The purging was done on the basis of the “doctrinal position” of official Missouri, elaborated in The Brief Statement of 1932 and the Statement on Scriptural and Confessional Principles of 1973. These statements affirm a literalist interpretation of the Bible (complete with seven-day creation), strict and narrow doctrinal requirements, and the prohibition of “unionism” with any church that does not concur with them. They deny Eucharistic fellowship to any who do conform to these narrow limits. My wife and I were refused communion at the very conference at which I was invited to speak.
Although I was the chaplain for the conference and the celebrant for that Divine Service, I did not discuss the matter with Dr Benne or his wife. President Harrison told me as we were preparing for the service that Dr Benne had asked him about communion and he had told him it would be best not to receive. I don’t know the extent of that conversation, or what all went into President Harrison’s decision, but I’m certain it wasn’t pleasurable for him to deliver that message. It may be that, upon examination, Dr Benne—and many, many others who would commune at a Missouri Synod altar on a one-off basis—might give the right answer to any doctrinal questions we would ask in determining what makes an individual a worthy communicant (see the Small Catechism and especially the Christian Questions with their Answers). But the issue is not simply a matter of the individual’s faith, but also the public confession of their church body. That’s the point of closed communion: altar fellowship is church fellowship.
It’s unpleasant, and rare indeed is the pastor who in any way enjoys turning someone away from the Sacrament. But in this case, President Harrison didn’t refuse communion to Dr Benne or his wife, so much as he could not yet recognize Dr Benne’s church body as in fellowship with us.
The Divine Service at the Life Conference was a one-off event. Where things get challenging is when the person is going to repeatedly be attending but may not be in a position to declare membership now, if ever. In certain cases, people end up regularly attending my Missouri Synod congregation regularly (either every Sunday for a few months to a year, or on repeated visits to the area for work or family) where there is no local congregation with which their home church is in fellowship (e.g., they are a member of a micro-synod). What to do? The closed communion formulations came about in a simpler age, where people moved around far less, and where there were not so many denominations.
A few years ago I had occasion to speak with one of these potential communicant’s pastor (formerly ELS) about how we should handle this challenge. He said something that I haven’t been able to shake: “Church membership is an important, but not the only, consideration in admission to the Supper.” Part of me wants to embrace that. Another part of me thinks it would just enable me to take the coward’s way out.
Nevertheless, of two things I am certain: A major realignment needs to take place in American Lutheranism; and closed communion is exceedingly challenging to maintain in a congregation where people come and go so quickly that the pastor cannot always remember who he’s admitted. I maintain the practice of closed communion in my parish, but it’s probably the least pleasant aspect of my work, and I find myself often with more questions than answers.
This is a very nice piece, Pr. Esget. Indeed, the practice and doctrine are difficult and painful. It would be easier to pretend that the doctrinal differences between us and the conservatives in the ELCA are simply matters of taste with no consequences. It would make everyone feel better. But, in fact, the ELCA’s position didn’t arise as a matter of taste but precisely from the broad doctrinal position and ambiguities that Dr. Benne sees as ideal in the NALC. I wish the NALC well, but I can’t help but think all they are doing is rolling the clock back 25 years. They have made no substantial corrections to the endemic errors in the formation of the original ELCA. If you refused Dr. Benne communion, as he describes it, so also did he refuse, adamantly, your doctrinal position which he regards as narrow and, by implication, bigoted. He likes where you stand on life in the womb, but he hates much of what you teach. God be praised that he sees what is at stake in the womb, but why would he think that he can refuse our very heart, that which is most essential and dear to us, even mock it, and that we should not notice or cry foul? In fact, we stand apart from him because we think that his doctrine is deadly, is anti-life, and will not pretend otherwise even if it causes us pain and ridicule. That is what it is to make confession. From our perspective, the pro-abortion bent of the ELCA is based in their refusal of inerrancy. That is why he is the exception and not the rule.
Very well said. I had been naively optimistic about the NALC until reading his piece. I now think there is no hope of fellowship with them, and entirely agree that they will likely end up in the same place as the ELCA in a few decades.
I did enjoy Benne’s talk, but I will admit I did feel a bit awkward about the fact that he was invited him to speak at an LCMS conference when he wouldn’t be able to commune with us. At the same time, he should have known full well that he wasn’t going to receive communion. I agree that they won’t ever be in communion with us, if only because I’ve been to a couple events of theirs here in western PA, and the NALC reality of women’s “ordination” has blindsided me each time.
It is awkward – and unfortunate that his charitable talk should be marred by the uncharitable post.
But it was great to see you and the lovely Bethanie!
Pastor Esget, I’m not sure if you’ve heard Pastor Bender talk about closed communion. When he’s had the chance to talk about it to a broad range of LCMSers (such as debate on a resolution at district convention) it helped people see that closed communion isn’t the meany bully thing to do, but really IS loving. And even when individual people agree with us doctrinally but are in a church that doesn’t, it’s important to emphasize to them (and to us too) that *faith lives from the word that is preached* and that’s why a pastor must care about visitors who are in a church body that does not preach the truth that sustains faith in the Lord Jesus.
In case you’re interested, there is a recording from the 2003 CCA symposium where this topic is discussed: “Who Receives This Sacrament Worthily?” Closed Communion: Its Theology and Practice CSTS03-5
But it’s still going to be hard to say, “I’m going to have to ask you not to commune today.”
As soon as he mentioned Burkee’s gossip book he lost all credibility in my eyes.
I believe that one of the reasons that the LCMS has for the most part remained orthodox is because of its teachings on closed communion. It forces its members to self select–and those who are willing to do so, taking doctrinal matters so seriously that they abjure membership in or communion with heretical institutions, form a body of believers that is ipso facto conservative/orthodox.
But despite the fact that closed communion remains on the books in the LCMS, the practice has fallen away. Many LCMS churches don’t fence their altars. Moreover, the congregations that do, have almost completely dropped the requirement that communicants examine themselves and attend some form of private confession (I think it used to be called “announcing one’s intention”) before partaking of the Lord’s Supper. ( I think even Rome doesn’t insist any longer on private confession before communion–they offer a general absolution in most parishes.)
It is a great challenge to get people to partake of this blessing without forcing it upon them. This is how the general absolution came about in our liturgies in the first place: private absolution no longer being required, soon no one partook.
I am 84 years old, a member of an LCMS Congregation for 65 years, today we are without a called Pastor, we are being served by a retired Pastor and a group of College Professors, none of them have been called to serve this congregation. In the legalistic form of the LCMS, I submit that they are not able to offer forgiveness fo my sin, when “I as a called and ordainted servant of the word forgive you”, defined this in a manner consistent with “close’ and “closed” communin, the bulleitin advises those are not members to “speak to the Pastor”, or if you wish a blessing, “cross your arms”.
Dear Harry,
There is certainly nothing wrong with the retired pastor speaking the Absolution to you. Even if he is not called to be pastor of your specific congregation, he is still called into the ministry and can certainly speak the Absolution. But please know that even without that blessing on a regular basis, your sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake!
I pray that the Lord blessed you and your church, and sends you a faithful pastor soon.
I’ve often wondered how a pastor should handle confessional people who regularly visit a church, or move to an area where their denomination isnt represented and show great respect for closed communion practices and puts up no fuss.
If the pastor gets to know the person, examines their faith finds that it is congruent with the confession which his denomination holds to but canno convince the person become a member because of family connection or some other reason.
Would it be acceptable for the pastor, in that specific instance and with great pastoral care taken, to offer the sacrament to this person despite their membership with a different Lutheran Church?
(example LCMS attending a WELS or ELS church or a microsynod member moving for work.)
I try to talk with the person’s pastor beforehand, and I think these situations (something more than 1 or 2 Sundays) genuinely fall under the pastor’s discretion. Each case has to be judged individually, but yes, it certainly is possible to offer the Sacrament in such circumstances.
How would a frequent visitor begin that conversation, ideally?
Depends on the pastor, I suppose – but if it were me, making an appointment with me to explain the situation would be best. Face to face is so much better than email for these kind of things. Meet the pastor for coffee or lunch. Say to him, “I need the Lord’s Supper! I don’t want to do anything you are uncomfortable with. Here’s my situation. Can you help me?” Any pastor worth his salt will WANT to help you.
Good to know! Thankfully I am not in such a situation at this time.
Wonderful Post and Blessing in Christ!