I. Preface

First, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present this paper to you today. Before I begin however, I have to say that, while I am the resident Theologian and Pastor of St. John Lutheran Church in Galveston, I am not by any means an `expert' on the subject of closed communion. Certainly there are those within our Synod that are much more read and learned on the subject than I, some of whom are most likely gathered here with us today.

My comments on this subject flow from a desire to uphold the truth of God's Word, as well as from a very intense personal struggle. I first presented this paper, at least in an earlier form, in Advent of 1997, to circuit 36 of the Texas District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which covers South Houston down to Galveston. I presented it to the circuit as the result of a request, or perhaps a challenge, by one of the circuit pastors, to show that Luther, were he a pastor in our Synod today, would in fact adhere to the practice of closed communion.

As I said, mine has also been a very intense personal struggle with this issue as my parents, who are part of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), and who I love dearly, have not been permitted to commune at the altar of `their son's church,' nor has he communed at theirs since joining the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Needless to say we have had many very intense and heartfelt discussions concerning this subject. Sadly, just as it seemed that I may have been making a bit of progress in defending and explaining my confession with my parents, a `brother' pastor in the LCMS I am told has communed many of the members of their church who have been out visiting other congregations. Perhaps you can sense then the personal struggle that I face with this issue as the door of closed communion is pushed to be opened from the outside while at the same time it is being pulled open from within.

I should mention to you also that since my writing of this paper the Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has released a report entitled Admission to the Lord's Supper - Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching, November 1999. While I have not had an opportunity to study it in great detail, I would say in general that the report is very well done and it does in fact uphold our Synod's position on Closed Communion. I commend the report to you here because it is certainly more scholarly and extensively done than what I am to present to you today.

Enough though of the background. On to the topic at hand.

II. Introduction

Hopefully from the title of this paper you will understand that closed communion is a church practice under attack both from inside the church, as well as from outside the church. I suspect though that the pull from the inside is greater than the push from the outside. In other words, it would seem that most of the dissatisfaction or grumbling over the doctrine of closed communion, as the Missouri Synod has historically expressed it, comes not from those on the outside looking in, but rather from within the walls of the church. Perhaps in the case of closed communion, it is true what Walter Kelly said in his comic strip "Pogo," that "we have met the enemy and he is us."

The struggle from within the church over the issue of closed communion should of course not surprise any of us. On more and more issues it seems that Christendom as a whole fights on the inside to accommodate those on the outside. Rather than being a transforming influence in its culture, the Church often yields to or accommodates that culture, justifying its lack of position and confession, supposedly standing behind the words of St. Paul, that "we must become all things to all men, that we might by all means save some" (I Cor. 9:22).

A case in point.... During the 1994 Convention of the Texas District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod there was a resolution on the floor "to affirm, as a District, our Synod's position on close(d) communion." During the course of discussion an individual took the microphone and expressed his displeasure with the fact that the Texas District of the LCMS would in convention pass a resolution that in effect hindered his congregation's efforts at reaching the lost with the saving message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This individual obviously saw closed communion as a practice not founded on the Word of God, or in giving him the benefit of the doubt that would be our hope, otherwise the pastor boldly chose to speak against the word of God itself. Meanwhile, others sat amazed that issues of doctrine such as closed communion would be the subject of open debate and much less of vote in a convention of the church. For them, the whole situation smelled almost of the Jesus Seminar scholars casting lots to determine which words of the Gospels Jesus actually spoke. In fact one individual, who stood squarely behind the practice of closed communion as a doctrine of the Word, rose in opposition to the resolution, because he said, "he didn't believe that we should have to vote in convention to tell our District President to do his job." The implication of the pastor's comment was that we should not have to take a vote to tell our District President to uphold the doctrine of the Synod.

III. A Definition of the Problem

Perhaps that brief introduction sets the stage for what I perceive, at least in part, to be the situation with the practice of closed communion in our Synod. While the official position of The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod may be one of closed communion, in reality congregations of the Synod are all over the spectrum on this issue. To the one side are those who believe that closed communion should not be practiced in any form in the church, for they consider it "anathema." That is because they perceive it to be a hindrance to missions, and as such, it cannot be right. These congregations will often have no communion statement at all printed in their Sunday worship folder.

Others would not go so far as to say that the church's need to evangelize trumps every other doctrine of the Word, but they would however limit what is necessary for the bond of unity to be maintained. For instance, for some agreement in and the presence of Baptism is enough to establish unity at the Lord's table. For others Baptism and agreement in the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ is enough. For others being Lutheran is enough. And still for others being Christian is enough.

The end result of all this disagreement over what is necessary to constitute fellowship at the Lord's table is that in the precise moment in which the Church is to know and express her greatest unity, the moment in which she is to partake of the divine essence, the moment in which she is to proclaim the death of Christ and the life that is given in His name, in that moment unity is destroyed by dissenting voices. For one says, if not by his words then by his affiliation, his membership status, I believe in Baptism, but not in the Real Presence. Another says, I believe in Jesus Christ, but not in the Virgin Birth. And still another says, I believe in the doctrine of Justification by grace through faith, but not in the same way that you do. Confessional unity then is destroyed, and the witness given to that unity at the Lord's Table is at best a false one.

In an admitted simplistic approach, this is the problem as I see it within our Synod over the issue of closed communion. Basically, how close is close enough. These though are of course theological distinctions which we will address in due time. There is a whole other side of the issue though and that is the emotional side - what we might call for the most part, the push on the door from the outside. The Baptist sister or brother, or the ELCA mother or father of one of our church members finds it very difficult to understand why they are not "allowed" or "permitted" to commune at our altar on a given Sunday morning. To be honest, often times many of our members are ill prepared to defend what they believe. With a great deal of trepidation they approach the subject in an apologetic sort of way. In a sense, secretly (or even loudly) wishing we did not, as a Synod, put them in such a difficult position of having to explain to a friend or a guest why they are welcome in the sanctuary but not at the altar.

The fact of the matter is, whatever a person's confession of faith may be toward the Lord's supper, whatever the perceived blessing of the Lord's Supper may be, be it symbolic, a remembrance of Jesus' death, or sacramental, the reception of the true body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation, entrance to the sacred meal has been caught up in the modern debate over personal rights - an emotion charged arena to say the least. As some see abortion as a personal right, be it the taking of a life or not, some see the taking of the Lord's Supper at a Christian Altar to be their personal "right." The pastor therefore who takes seriously his charge as a steward of the mysteries of God (I Cor. 4:1) is apt to face all manner of opposition as he, in faithfulness to God's Word, withholds the Body and Blood of Christ from one who considers it his or her personal "right" to partake of it. By the same token, the pastor is not immune either to the forces that push in on him, that urge him to do away with the doctrines of the word, doctrines that he has sworn by confession and by oath to uphold. Many a pastor no doubt has opened the door to the Lord's Table, not out of his confession, not out of conviction, but out of his unwillingness to make a confession, out of his unwillingness to fight the good fight, to stir the water, if you will.

There is no doubt that this emotional side of the issue must be handled with a great deal of pastoral care. Sometimes ones insistence on personal "rights' is based more upon ignorance than anything else. It is for pastors, as stewards of the mysteries of God, to painstakingly teach, making use of the Law and Gospel in their proper seasons. It is for lay people in our Synod to understand the evangelical motivation behind our practice of closed communion that they might use it as a means to open the door for the speaking of the Gospel to a friend or family member.

What I intend to do in this humble offering on the subject of closed communion is to offer a few concrete witnesses to make the case for the practice of closed communion. First, by taking a brief look at its historic context, to see how the early church dealt with the issue. Second, by looking at the Biblical context in order to establish that there is indeed a Biblical mandate to strive for purity in what we believe, teach and confess in the Church. And finally, since Luther's stance on the issue has been challenged, by offering a few quotes from Luther himself that I believe speak to the subject.

Before I proceed, let me say that I am not so naive as to believe that a paper such as this could ever fix the problem over this issue in our Synod. Actually, I think that the issue of closed communion is really more a symptom of a larger problem or problems, than it is a core problem in itself. However, I am a pastor and a theologian, and therefore, I address this subject because of my conviction. I do so with the hope of getting those bent on pulling open the door of closed communion, in other words those inside our Synod who oppose the practice of closed communion or who favor a "don't ask don't tell rule" for the reception of communion, to at least look at the issue and to approach it honestly, letting the early church, Scripture and Luther speak. It is also my hope that we as a Synod, will once again shore up the door of closed communion. In doing so, not to thumb our collective noses at the world, but to hold out to the world the only hope. The hope that is found in the pure confession of Jesus Christ, whose Body and Blood are so graciously given in this Holy Meal. To that end I have, in the appendix of this paper, also provided an extensive Bible study on the subject in order that the Word might speak for itself.

IV. Terminology

Before we begin with a historical look at closed communion we need to set some ground rules for our terminology. Obviously the issue we need to address here is whether to use the term "closed" or "close" communion in our discussions.

The term "closed communion" is certainly the historic usage. As the early church prepared to celebrate the second part of the Divine Service, and here I quote from Paul McCain's extensive work on this subject in Communion Fellowship, "heretics, catechumens, those not in fellowship with the church, those who were mentally incompetent, and those under church discipline were dismissed from the sanctuary. The doors were closed, and then, and only then, the Sacrament was celebrated. The call went out to the faithful, `The holy things for the holy ones' (ta| a]gia toi`~ a|gi|o~)." Closed communion originally got its name then from the literal closing of the doors at the beginning of the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

Where the use of the term "close" communion first enters the picture is a bit more difficult to establish. Again, I draw upon Paul McCain's research, who I might add drew heavily on the research of Norman Nagel, Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. "The expression "close communion" actually has its roots in the Baptist church (says McCain). In the November 1941 issue of The American Lutheran we notice the term on page sixteen. The term had been "borrowed" from the Baptist church. As Webster points out, the expression "close communion" is a phrase peculiar to the Baptists (New Unabridged Dictionary, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979, p.367)."

Though we find the phrase "close communion" first appearing in Baptist circles, it is still a bit vague as to why the term began to be used in the first place. In Lutheran circles today the term is used by some thinking that it is a bit more loving in tone and a bit less intolerant sounding than "closed communion." The problem is, some see an essential difference in meaning between the two terms. In reality there is no such difference. Both terms include the need for pastoral care and pastoral discretion in their application. "Close communion" does not mean "open communion" nor does it mean the practice whereby we commune those that are close to us in confession. Consider the following communion statement taken from the service bulletin of a congregation of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod as they attempt to define what "close communion" means:

"Lutheran's practice close communion. This means as you come to the Lord's Supper you are affirming with each communicant that Jesus is your personal Savior and Lord, that with confirmed Lutheran Christians you believe His body and blood is present for the forgiveness of sins, and you desire to serve Him as a disciple in the fellowship of His church. As you prepare to receive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood for the forgiveness of your sins, prayerfully consider the following questions: 1) Do I believe that I am a sinful human being without hope of eternal life except for God's mercy in Christ Jesus? 2) Do I believe that Jesus is God's Son and my personal Savior? 3) Do I believe that He is personally present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion with His Body and Blood? 4) Do I desire by the Holy Spirit's power to live a godly life? For those who choose not to receive wine, white grape juice is available in the center of each communion tray." (From "Living Praise" - Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, Carrollton, Texas, 3/5/2000)

This is certainly not a proper understanding of close communion. If anything the term "close" communion is better suited to our understanding as Lutherans to the doctrine at issue, in that it gets at the closeness established between the sinner, God, and other Christians at the Lord's Supper. The fact is, nowhere else do we make a more public confession of our faith and of the close bond that we have with one another in that faith, than when we take Christ's body and blood into ourselves. Indeed, in this solemn act we do at one, and with one voice "proclaim the Lord's death until He comes again" (I Cor. 11:26).

And so, the phrase "close communion," at least as I see it, is not a standard whereby we determine whether or not to commune with other Christians, it is rather a proclamation of the unity of faith confessed in the partaking of the Supper. Close communion is exemplified in St. Luke's description of the church in Acts 2:42 where he writes, "and they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42).

That being said, for purposes of this paper I will simply use the term "closed communion." Mainly because I believe this term has more historical precedent, and because I believe that the words closed and close are synonymous. But I also use the term closed communion, because quite frankly, it cuts down on having to type both words, like the annoying necessity of having to say he and / or she when referring to a person.

V. The Witness of the Early Church

It would be wrong for us to think of the early church as the age of complete unity within Christendom. It would be wrong too to think that the early church, if not in complete unity, had at least fewer issues to debate than the Church does today. From the earliest times, there were disputes and disagreements in the Church. Some of them were great, causing large scale divisions, and some of them were less divisive.

One of the earliest issues that the Church had to deal with after the apostolic period, was that of fellowship - how to determine which church bodies should be considered "in fellowship" with one another. The problem arose after the apostolic period, because to that point in time it was the apostles who established doctrine (certainly by inspiration of God), and who determined when fellowship should be extended. After the apostolic period a system of Bishops was established. In that period "each was to hold to his Bishop" for fellowship. In that regard consider the following admonition of Ignatius, a second century church father. "It is therefore begetting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience, "ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing," and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may in all respects be sanctified."

Fellowship issues continued to be a struggle for the early Christians. But there was one place in which they held fast and were uncompromising in their beliefs, that being in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Werner Elert writes: "Origen points out that the Christians are not like the philosophers whom anybody may attend and listen to. The Christians on the contrary test every man first and instruct him privately until he gives demonstration of trustworthiness and an orderly life. Only then is he admitted to their assembly as a `hearer.'"

As we turn to some of the historic writings on this issue, we find that there is in fact a great deal of historical precedent for the practice of closed communion. But, of course, this is something that does not even seem to be debated much in our Synod today. In other words, even those who insist on one form or another of open communion, of pulling the door open from the inside, would likely agree that the early church did in fact practice closed communion.

Here I would simply like to reinforce by citation that there is in fact historical precedent for the practice of closed communion.

(Ignatius - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians - 2nd century.)

"Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and "the first-born of every creature," but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ."

(Ignatius - The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans - early 2nd century.)

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion (of Christ) has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."

(Justin Martyr - The First Apology of Justin - 2nd century.)

"And this food is called among us Eukaristia (the Eucharist), of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

(The Didache - 1st century.)

The teaching of the Lord to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles.

"But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving but those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For it was of this that the Lord said, `do not give dogs what is sacred.'" 

This is of course just a sampling of the witness from the early church concerning their view of the practice of closed communion and yet what is here is certainly clear in its position. But, even so, though we find quotations from the early church that are indisputable in terms of their support for the practice of closed communion, we must also acknowledge that simply because something was a historical practice in the church is not sufficient reason for the church of today to adopt such a practice indiscriminately. In other words, we must recognize the fact that simply because something was done by the early church does not make it right. In the words of Francis Pieper, "It will certainly not do to define as "dogma" any doctrine which merely "asks for, or claims to have, the sanction of the Church. That dogma is a church dogma which is taken from the "manual' of the Christian Church, from Holy Scripture, and every dogma which does not have its origin in Scripture is unchurchly. As matters stand, it cannot be otherwise. The Christian Church has no doctrine of its own; it possesses, teaches, and confesses only Christ's doctrine."

VI. Scripture

Perhaps the greatest struggle we have with establishing the Scriptural basis for the doctrine of closed communion is in the fact that Scripture never says, in so many words, "Thou shalt practice closed communion." It is for sure not one of the Ten Commandments. And yet, as a Synod we profess to believe that closed communion is the will of God for a congregation who desires to exercise proper stewardship over the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. Therefore, we have repeatedly passed resolutions at both the District and Synodical levels to affirm our position. In a like manner, the CTCR has published its opinion on the subject; one that holds to our Synodical position.

Some are troubled though with the practice of closed communion, because of the absence of a clear Biblical mandate. Perhaps we should remember here that many doctrines are derived from God's Word without any specific `thou shall', or `thou shalt not.' Scripture for instance never says, "Thou shalt baptize infants." And yet, as Lutherans we believe that the grace of God given through the waters of Baptism is intended for all people, young and old. This truth we would stake our lives on, and indeed we have done so. And even in the absence of the words we might like to see in Scripture, the doctrine of infant baptism is believed, taught and confessed among us because we believe that it is clearly taught in Scripture. We might also remember that the word Trinity or Triune is never used in the Bible. And yet, as Lutherans we confess our faith, along with the one holy catholic and Apostolic Church, in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - One God in Three Persons - the Triune God.

There is a certain danger in turning to the word of God in search of singular proof texts to support a particular belief or doctrine. The statements made above concerning the absence of various commands in the Bible would indicate that to base one's theology solely on the basis of proof texts would be to run the risk of failing to teach a critical doctrine of the faith simply because it could not be "proven" by a particular verse. Likewise, to support a doctrine on the strength of an obscure "proof text" is to risk teaching what the word does not teach. History testifies to the fact that every heresy conceived was "proven" by the word of God. Arius for instance, a fourth century heretic, who rejected the divinity of Christ, based his understanding of the creatureliness of Christ in part on Proverbs 8:22 which says, "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old." In the same fashion Tertullian, a second century theologian, interpreted St. Peter himself as the special foundation upon which the church was to be built based on Matthew 16:18 in which Jesus said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

A well established principle of Biblical interpretation for Lutherans is that the Word of God must be taken as a whole and it must be allowed to interpret itself. And so, in instances in which there is no "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not," the Word must be read in its totality. Applying such an understanding of the word, we can examine what Scripture teaches concerning the Lord's Supper and Christian fellowship, and from that, we can determine whether or not that Word calls us to adhere to a doctrine of "closed communion."

As we turn to God's word we will look first at some specifics about the Lord's Supper. We will consider the Supper as it relates first to its essence, second to its reception, third to its vertical dimension and finally to its horizontal dimension.

First, we will examine the essence of the Lord's Supper. We confess, as per the Small Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther, that the Lord's Supper "is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."

We are a Sacramental church holding to the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. Why do we believe as such? Because our Lord, on the night in which He was betrayed clearly says, "Take, eat, this is my body," and "this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:26, 28). As Jesus looked ahead to the cross, speaking what was essentially the words of His last will and testament, He gives us no cause to take His words in any way but their literal meaning. As we learn in the Small Catechism, such words are recorded by the holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and by St. Paul (the Apostle).

Hopefully within the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod there is no disagreement among us that the Lord's Supper is the true body and blood of Christ. Though we cannot grasp this treasured doctrine of the word by our own reason, we dare not let it slip the grasp of faith. Make no mistake, the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. It is He who works mighty things in this sacrament. It is He who gives of Himself and who bestows forgiveness, life and salvation. This is all true, but it does make a difference whether we believe this or not. We find that to be true as we turn to the second area of consideration, the reception of the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ whether a person believes that to be so or not. In other words, it is not a person's faith that makes the Lord's Supper what it is, rather it is his faith that receives the blessings of that Supper. To him who believes the word of God, there is given "life, and salvation, for where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation."

But to him who does not believe, or to him who does not discern the body of Christ in the Supper there is the judgment, or the discipline of God. St. Paul writes in I Corinthians 11 verse 26 and following, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly." (I Cor. 11:26-29) Is St. Paul not telling us here that the Sacrament is to be received by those properly able to examine themselves? (ie, those properly instructed).

A person then can take the Lord's Supper unto their judgment, not being properly instructed and therefore not judging the body rightly. As stewards of the mysteries of God, pastors are commanded to be stewards of the gift. They are not to give the very Body and Blood of our Lord to one who does not embrace it by faith. To do so the pastor would be less than a faithful steward of the mysteries for in doing so it would contribute to a fellow sinner's judgment. Hence, the essence of the Lord's Supper demands that its reception be limited to the faithful.

Third, we will consider the vertical dimension of the sacrament. I will not say a great deal here. It is clear from the essence of the Lord's Supper that, when we receive Christ's Body and Blood, we are in communion with our God. In fact, "to communicate" means to partake of the body and blood of Christ. For this reason, Cyril of Jerusalem, a fourth century theologian, points to 2 Peter 1:4, which reads `by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature...' to show that we are to "have a share in the divine nature."" St. Paul too reminds us, "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing (participation) in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing (participation) in the body of Christ" (I Cor. 10:16)? How much more intimate could we be with God than to take His very Body and Blood into ourselves? This is what is meant by the vertical dimension of communion. The Lord's Supper is God breaking into time and space to establish fellowship, unity, and oneness with His fallen yet redeemed creation.

Finally, we consider the horizontal dimension of the Lord's Supper. Perhaps this is where we have the greatest struggle in understanding the Biblical mandate for closed communion. In our individualistic society, we have no problem recognizing that at the communion rail we commune as individuals with our God, for we are very much caught up in the personal relationship aspect of the faith. We object, however, to the fact that at that same communion rail we also make a confession of our faith and declare ourselves to be in agreement with those with whom we commune.

To partake of the Lord's Supper is to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. It is to make a proclamation of what we believe. It is a public rite; a public statement. With that in mind, we turn to the Scripture to see what it has to say about standing against error and false teaching.

To start with, consider the general theme of the Old Testament whereby God strove to keep His people free from the corrupting influence of those whose faith was not in the Covenant God. It is not that God wanted the people of Israel to shelter the word and keep it to themselves, but He would not have Israel corrupted by her pagan neighbors. For instance, when it came time for Jacob to take a wife, Isaac took him aside and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, "You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan" (Genesis 28:1). God was not against the Canaanites, rather He was against what they believed and who they followed. In obedience to God's will, Jacob departed for Paddan-aram to Laban, the brother of Rebekah in order to find a wife. Esau on the other hand took Canaanite wives, Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; and as Genesis 26:35 tells us, "they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah." Through Isaac, God impressed upon Jacob the necessity of keeping the leaven of outside influences from corrupting Israel.

Often times people read of the battles of Old Testament days, especially as recorded in books like Joshua, and they are troubled by the carnage that takes place. When Israel conquered a city they were commanded by God to kill every living thing in the city. Indeed, when the walls of Jericho fell, it was only Rahab and her family that were spared. God commanded the destruction of everything else. Again, through His command to destroy all the pagan nations encountered by Israel, God utilized Israel as an instrument of His wrath upon unbelief, and He endeavored to impress upon Israel the necessity of keeping the leaven of outside influences from corrupting her.

Unfortunately, the people of Israel did not always obey God, and thus they began to be influenced by unbelieving nations and peoples. Finally, God turned the tables in sending pagan nations to chastise, to judge Israel, culminating in the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC. The sad words of Isaiah 1:4 express God's anguish over the situation. "Alas, sinful nation, people weighed down with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away from Him."

As we move into the New Testament we find that same admonition to stand against false teaching, for here too, "a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf" (I Cor. 5:6). St. Paul left Timothy, his son in the faith, in Ephesus "that he might instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines..." (I Timothy 1:3). Further, Timothy was charged by Paul to "pay attention to himself and his teaching; (to) persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you" (I Timothy 4:16). Later, Paul says to Timothy, "retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you" (II Timothy 1:13-14).

St. Paul also counseled Titus on the subject of sound doctrine and the need to give confession of one's faith. "In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us" (Titus 2:7-8).

And finally, for one of the earliest witnesses of Paul's concern for the purity of teaching in the fledgling church, we have his words given to the elders of Ephesus whom he met with on his third mission journey. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears" (Acts 20:28-31).

The point is, doctrine, according to the source of all Christian doctrine, the word, is critically important. One must stand for what one believes, pointing out error as it is seen. Without a doubt we are bound by the word to oppose error and to publicly confess the truth. Francis Pieper states in What is Christianity?: "The confession of the pure Christian faith always involves the rejection of all opposing errors. Whoever accords error or equivocation a legitimate place alongside of God's word thereby surrenders divine truth; for it is peculiar to truth that it invariably repulses error."

Is this not what our Lord teaches us when He says, "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:19-21)?

But how much agreement in doctrine is enough? Werner Elert comments in his Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries: "In the course of the second century the church drew firm and indeed narrow lines as the boundaries of church fellowship. Could they not have been more charitable, more liberal, more tolerant? Nowadays the advice would certainly be given that the unity of the church is established and the foundation for the practice of church fellowship provided by the common recognition of `Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.' Nothing more would be asked. Thus advised, the early church would have been able to regard as unexceptionable Marcion's denial of the authority of the Old Testament, Valentinus' unevangelical aeon Christology, and the Montanists' claim to represent the Paraclete. It would then not have been necessary to insist that the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and not another god, is the Creator of the world, as the Apostle's Creed declares." 

Some may say too though, what of those Christian groups in which we are in agreement on the essence of the Lord's Supper (ie, the ELCA). Why should we not commune with them? Do we who bear the name Lutheran not share a common confession of faith? This obviously could have been the subject of a whole paper, but let me say just a few words about it here. Even though we both wear the name Lutheran, we do not commune with the ELCA simply because we are not in agreement in faith. The fact is, in its public writings the ELCA denies many of the basic tenants of the Christian faith. Among those tenants are the ELCA's concession, through the Lutheran World Federation, with the Roman Catholic Church on the doctrine of Justification by grace through faith. An excellent resource on the subject of the ELCA's departure from the historic Christian faith is the book What's Going On Among the Lutherans. In it authors Patsy Leppien and Kincaid Smith, both members of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), examine the public writings of the ELCA. Chiefly they quote from Christian Dogmatics, edited by Braaten and Jensen, a text for pastoral instruction at ELCA seminaries and Search a primary adult Bible-study program of the ELCA. A chief departure from the historic Christian faith is in the ELCA's stance toward the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Here I will quote from Leppien and Smith who quote Christian Dogmatics;

"It is finally for the sake of Christ alone that the church continues to regard the Bible as a book without equal in the history of human literature. For this reason the churches that claim the heritage of Luther and the Reformation still affirm the Bible as the Word of God. This is not meant in the fundamentalist sense that everything in the Bible stands directly as the Word of God...This valuation of the Bible as the Word of God is asserted with greater awareness of the historical problems involved in Biblical interpretation...The role of the Bible in constructive theology is radically qualified today by historical consciousness. Luther believed that the literal meaning of Scripture is identical with its historical content; things happened exactly as they were written down. Today it is impossible to assume the literal historicity of all things recorded. What the biblical authors report is not accepted as a literal transcript of the factual course of events. Therefore, critical scholars inquire behind the text and attempt to reconstruct the real history that took place."

The ELCA denies the inerrancy of the Bible, and from this error flow many other errors in doctrine. The ELCA then, in many respects, has departed from the historic Christian faith. While the individual ELCA congregation or even the person sitting in the pew may not agree with the official position of their church body, they make a public proclamation of their belief in their church when they worship and commune at that church on a regular basis. In other words, a person who is a member of the ELCA, by their action, says to the world, `I believe as the ELCA believes.' If they do not then they are in the wrong church. Again, by its nature truth opposes error.

So, what does all this mean? Holding closed communion to be a doctrine founded on the Word of God, are we cutting ourselves off from the world as a sect of the Christian church destined for obscurity? Does all this mean we should not strive to speak the Gospel to the world? Certainly the answer is no! It simply means that in the Lord's Supper, where we make a public profession of our faith, we are to stand upon what we believe. We are to confess the truth. We are to honor the word of Scripture to be lights of truth to the world. We are to take the closing of the door at the Supper not as an opportunity to shun the world and the rest of Christendom, but as an opportunity to confess, and to teach.

VII. Luther

If there is any concern at all that Luther himself would have refused anyone communion on the basis of their confession, I offer a couple of quotes that may help to dispel that concern.

First, in a discussion about administering communion when one has a symbolic understanding of the Supper, Luther writes (this, by the way, is taken from "An Open Letter to Those in Frankfurt on the Main, 1533");

"It is quite true that wherever the preacher administers only bread and wine for the Sacrament, he is not very concerned about to whom he gives it, what they know or believe, or what they receive. There one sow feeds with the others, and such preachers simply see themselves above such caring. They would rather have uninstructed, ecstatic saints than have the care of nurturing Christians. Rather, they want to do things in such a way that after three years every thing would be laid waist, and neither God nor Christ nor Sacrament nor Christians would remain anymore. However, because we are concerned about nurturing Christians who will still be here after we are gone, and because it is Christ's body and blood that are given out in the Sacrament, we will not and cannot give such a Sacrament to anyone unless he is first examined regarding what he has learned from the Catechism and whether he intends to forsake the sins which he has again committed. For we do not want to make Christ's church into a pig pen (Matthew 7:6), letting each one come unexamined to the Sacrament as a pig to its trough. Such a church we leave to the Enthusiasts!"

And then from his sermon on I Corinthians 11:23-26 written in 1534 Luther writes;

"This is also the reason why the Sacrament has been called Communio in Latin, a communion. And those who do not want to be of the same faith, doctrine, and life, as other Christians are, are called excommunicatis, people who are dissimilar in doctrine, words, understanding and life. Therefore these should not be tolerated in the group that has the same understanding; they would divide it and split it up. The Holy Sacrament, then, serves as a means whereby Christ holds His little flock together. The teachers of old have said that Christ purposefully used bread and wine for His Supper. For every kernel of grain has its own body and form, but they are ground together and become one bread. Just so every human being is an individual and a creature apart from others. But in the Sacrament we are, as it were, baked into one cake; for there we have the same faith, the same confession, love and hope." 

Certainly at the time of Luther, divergent views on the essence of the Lord's Supper were still in their infancy, and Luther did not have to contend with the issue on the scale that we do today. And yet, his famous debate with Zwingli, in Marburg, establishes clearly his position on the dividing influence of divergent confessions.

Again, I quote Luther. This time as recorded by Herman Sasse in his book, This is My body. "I rate as one concoction, namely as sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is his true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all (other) saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered."

VIII. Some concluding remarks

The door of closed communion is being pushed open from the outside while it is being pulled open from the inside. Perhaps though, the pull from within is the greater force. Perhaps the world really does, or would, honor the convictions of those who have them if they would only express them. Perhaps we as a Synod have allowed our zeal to make disciples of the nations trump every other doctrine of the Word, as if disciples can be made without truth. Perhaps we have developed selective hearing, letting the voices of today speak louder, such that they cloud the voices of days past. And yet, the witness of our forefathers, of Luther, and of the Scriptures remain.

In closing I would like to quote the first president of our Synod, Dr. C.F.W. Walther on the subject of whom to commune?

"The holy supper is one of the marks, one of the banners of the church, one of the seals of the doctrine and the faith (Rom. 4:11, see I Cor. 10:21; Ex. 12:48). In whichever church one receives the holy supper, one is confessing that church and its doctrine. There cannot be a more inward, brotherly fellowship than that into which one enters with those in whose fellowship receive the holy supper. The apostle says, `For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till He come.' (I Cor. 11:26). And `for we being many, are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.' (I Cor. 10:17)....If one communes in a strange church, one is actually joining it, presenting himself as a witness for its doctrine, and declaring its members to be his brothers and sisters in the faith....What are those preachers doing who admit anyone without distinction? They are proving that they are unfaithful, frivolous stewards over God's mysteries. They are setting themselves up as lords over His holy Sacrament, when they should only be its ministers."

 Rev. Paul McCain, Communion Fellowship - A Resource for understanding, implementing, and retaining the practice of closed communion in the Lutheran Parish, (Waverly, Iowa: The International Foundation for Lutheran Confessional Research, Inc., 1992), p.19.
 Norman Nagel, Closed Communion: In the Way of the Gospel, In the Way of the Law (St. Louis: Concordia Journal, January 1991).
 McCain, 19.
 Werner Ellert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries (St. Louis, Missouir: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), 49.
 Ibid., 50.
 Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter I, (US: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, as found in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Wheaton College)
 Ibid., 75.
 Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter XX, (US: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, as found in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Wheaton College)
 Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, Chapter VII, (US: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, as found in Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Wheaton College)
 Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin, Chapter LXVI, (US: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, as found in Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Wheaton College)
 William Weinrich, D. Theol., Readings in Early Church History (Ft. Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1988), 12.
 Francis Pieper, D.D., Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 99.
 Martin Luther, Small Catechism (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1943), 20.
 Ibid., 21.
 Cyril of Jerusalem, Five Catechetical Lectures to the Newly Baptized - Lecture XXII - "On the Body and Blood of Christ (US: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885, as found in Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Wheaton College)
 Francis Pieper, What Is Christianity? And other Essays (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1933), 45.
 Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries (St. Louis, Missouir: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), 52.
 Patsy A. Leppien & J. Kincaid Smith, What's Going on Among the Lutherans? (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Northwestern Publishing House, 1992), 55.
 Martin Luther, Not a pig pen! (Doctrine & Practice, August 1996, Vol. 3, Number 3), 37.
 Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says - A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 812. (From Luther's 1534 Sermon on I Corinthians 11:23-26).
 Hermann Sasse, This is my body. (Adelaide, South Australia: Lutheran Publishing House, 1959), 237.
 C.F.W. Walther, Whom to Commune? (Doctrine & Practice, August 1996, Vol. 3, Number 3), 32.

Rev. Alan Taylor
(409) 762-2702 (W)
St. John Lutheran Church
(409) 770-9891 (H) Galveston Island, Texas
patmosTX@juno.com

"On the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus."

Back to News Index