Most of the names in this letter are not real.
Dear Aunt Francine,
I wrote this letter back in October, but I never got around to sending it. Time got away from me, and I returned to it the week before your arrival out here. I’m sorry for that unintended delay.
I know that you want to take communion at Holy Trinity, and I know that you noticed that we didn’t have it when you and Uncle Art were visiting in October. Jake mentioned to me that you had said as much when you were visiting with the Watsons.
When we consider the matter of who would receive the Lord’s Supper, there are two pertinent questions:
- Who should receive the Lord’s Supper?
- Who should receive the Lord’s Supper from the same altar?
The answer to (1) is that all Christians are bidden to eat the Lord’s Supper. The answer to (2) is that only those who are united in doctrine should partake of the Lord’s Supper from the same altar/at the same table.
With that said, the determination that there is, in fact, unity in doctrine is not made individually or personally but congregationally. This was the position of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States at its inception and for the better part of a century afterwards.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the LCMS of today really is the same entity as the Evangelical-Lutheran synod established by C. F. W. Walther and his saintly contemporaries, it suffices to say that the same orderly approach to communion fellowship is still taken by conservative LCMS pastors and congregations — and rightly so.
For example, when Pastor Perestroika, speaking on behalf of the congregation of St. James, says that “those who are not members in good standing of this congregation or of a sister congregation of the LCMS or of one of our sister church bodies are asked not to come forward for communion at this time” (I’m paraphrasing from memory), he is correctly stating what the basis for communion fellowship must be — although his statement also assumes that church discipline, closed communion, etc., are practiced uniformly and consistently throughout the LCMS, and this is definitely not the case.
Fellowship among congregations is a two-way street. As such, it is not something that a congregation can simply declare. Even if we were inclined to do so, Holy Trinity could not simply declare itself to be in fellowship with Prince of Peace in Autumndale or St. James in Hobble Hill — or any other congregation, for that matter. Public mutual agreement is necessary. LCMS congregations are in fact prohibited by the constitution of Synod (“The Handbook”) from entering into fellowship agreements with other church bodies (and congregations) by unilateral congregational decision, independently of the Synod. LCMS congregations are bound by the fellowship agreements of the Synod as a whole, although plenty of congregations and pastors choose to ignore those agreements — and I would be remiss not to point out that this is covenantbreaking (see Romans 1:31), regardless of how one may feel about it.
Pastor Perestroika and the men of St. James believe that membership matters when it comes to communion fellowship, which is why St. James practices closed communion, i.e., admittance to the Sacrament based on membership: a person’s membership at St. James — or at a congregation which is itself a member of the Missouri Synod (or of a sister synod such as the AALC).
Pastor Keindingus and the leadership of Prince of Peace do not believe that membership matters — a person’s membership in a particular congregation or a congregation’s membership in a particular fellowship — when it comes to the Lord’s Supper, and they probably have never given much thought to the matter, which is why Prince of Peace practices open communion.
In keeping with longstanding orthodox Lutheran practice — which St. James at least tries to uphold, and which Prince of Peace does not uphold —, we at Holy Trinity, do not presume to practice communion fellowship where none has been established by mutual congregational declaration.
I know that you know this, but it bears repeating: closed communion is not in itself a declaration that those not invited to the table are not Christians. It is not necessarily even a declaration that those not invited to the table are personally heterodox. It is simply a recognition that communion fellowship in the Visible Church is established by, and exists among, congregations.
Certainly there is an element of sadness in all of this. We wish things were different. With the saints beneath the heavenly altar, we cry out “How long, O Lord?” as we behold the warfare against the Church, which manifests also among and within the congregations which claim the name of Christ. But we do not do so in a sanctimonious way. “For there must be also divisions among you,” St. Paul writes, “that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Co 11:19). “It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” St. Jude writes (Jude 3). John Calvin echoes the apostles with these words: “Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.” ( — a bit ironic, given how much energy the Calvinists have spent over the course of their history on trying to get Lutherans to commune with them, but we’ll let that lie for now.)
To summarize: divided congregations are not brought into concord in “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” by celebrating the Sacrament together; no, but they celebrate the Sacrament together if and only if such concord is achieved. To knowingly do the former is a failure to discern the Lord’s Body every bit as flagrant as any sacramentarian denial of the Real Presence, and it incurs the same judgment (1 Co 11:27ff).
The situation in which conscientious Christian women find themselves in the Lutheran Church these days is certainly vexing. To date, we have had one unmarried gal come to us from Beautiful Savior over in Little Bog, the LCMS church where the Kettlebells used to be members. She comes by herself, without any family. To my knowledge, she does not live under her father’s roof; even if she did, he does not exercise any kind of headship with respect to her church attendance, etc., and so she has been “turned out” in this respect. All this to say, she has been going through catechesis with two others (both men) at our home on Tuesday nights for the last few months, and she will be received as a member on Sunday, April 12, along with one of them (whom she is now dating). Though she is already Lutheran by profession, she has not communed at Holy Trinity up until the present, because she has not been a member.
The situation with married women is somewhat different. Having pondered the matter in the light of Scripture to the best of my ability and conferred with various Christian brothers, this is where I have landed:
A Christian woman has a duty to abstain from the Lord’s Supper if the congregation where she is a member is, to her knowledge, publicly heterodox, i.e., if its confession (to include the teaching and preaching of its pastor or pastors) plainly contradicts the Catechism. If the congregation is at least publicly orthodox, however, she should submit her conscience to the decision of her husband as her head. Matters beyond her own congregation are not her direct concern, e.g., her congregation’s affiliation, synodical membership, etc. They are her husband’s direct concern, whether or not he recognizes them as such. If he is not doing his duty with respect to those things, she is not culpable for that.
I’ll admit, I find the situation you’re currently in to be a bit tenuous, inasmuch as Uncle Art won’t commune at St. James but is “fine with” (perhaps passively so) you doing so. But that is not nothing. You’re not refusing to submit to him. I know you wish he would take more of an active interest in these matters, but in the meantime, satis est. You and Uncle Art are members at Prince of Peace, Prince of Peace does not publicly contradict the Catechism, and Prince of Peace and St. James are in fellowship.
Orthodox Lutheran congregations ought to be in fellowship with each other, just as orthodox Lutheran Christians ought to recognize one another and assemble together for worship (Hebrews 10:25), which regular assembly just is an orthodox Lutheran congregation. I hope and pray that Prince of Peace and St. James both realize that the old Missouri Synod is gone and that the current-year LCMS corporation stands for false doctrine, and I hope that they and their pastors act accordingly and disassociate from it.
In the meantime, I pray that you can be at peace with the way things are, even though they are not ideal, even though our congregations are, for the time being, not in communion fellowship. I encourage you to continue doing what you are doing with a good conscience, even as you continue to pray that Prince of Peace and St. James (and others) would allow themselves to be reformed by the Lord of the Church in accordance with His holy Word.
We greatly look forward to your visit.
Love, your nephew,
Quartus
The Boniface Group 