Some Thoughts on Close(d) Communion

That ought to clear the decks pretty quickly.

I admit pretty freely that I came out of a very progressive Lutheran campus ministry.  We were liturgical, but contemporary.  We were sacramental, but we were also pretty open in terms of the sacraments, believing it was always better to err on the side of grace than law.  It's a rule of thumb I still tend to operate with today, but I've come a long ways in better appreciating and respecting our denomination's tradition of close(d) communion.  I'm sure that the Seminary faculty would be very relieved to hear this.  

Close(d) communion is the LCMS practice of limiting participation in the Sacrament of Holy Communion to those people that share the same theological understanding and faith about what is happening during Communion.  This has looked slightly differently (and probably still does) depending on where you go and what decade you attended.  It wasn't uncommon at one point for Communion to only be given to those who were actual members of the local congregation.  Even more so, only those members who gave written notice in advance of their intent to commune, and who received private confession and absolution from the pastor beforehand were allowed to commune.  Communion was generally offered more rarely than it is today - sometimes only once a month or once a quarter.  I remember hearing about Lutheran congregations that only offered it once a year.

Clearly, these congregations & pastors recognized that Holy Communion is a Big Deal and it needs to be prepared for properly.  

Growing up, the churches I was a part of stated that those visitors wishing to commune needed to speak with the pastor or the elder beforehand.  This was basically to affirm their membership in another LCMS congregation somewhere.  At least, that's what I assume it was for.  Perhaps communion policies were more liberal, but the impression was given that you still needed to be an LCMS member, even if you were not a member of the particular congregation you wished to commune with.

I've spoken with some folks in the recent weeks that have an issue with this practice.  Today Lutherans (and Roman Catholics) are viewed with some considerable disdain by our fellow Christians who treat Holy Communion as Less of a Big Deal.  The Catholics get away with it because, well, they're Catholics.  But there seems to be the idea that Lutherans ought to know better.  And indeed, not all Lutheran denominations are in accord on the topic, with my particular denomination being one of the more conservative and traditional ones on this subject.

Why deny the grace of God to anyone, critics ask?  How can we be so unloving?  How can we be so territorial and restrictive in a day when congregations are struggling to survive?  What would, after all, Jesus do?

I'd like to spend a few entries talking about this topic, as my reading in the Concordia Journals has touched on this topic from a historical perspective, and my dialog with visitors to my congregation has spurred additional thought on the subject as well.  If you have specific things you'd like to ask or have me cover (to the best of my ability), feel free to leave a comment!
Posted by Paul Nelson at 3/17/2011 10:28 AM
Categories: Church, Theology, Apologetics
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 3/19/2011 9:38 AM Diane wrote:
    In a congregation should close(d) communion be consistently practiced?? In my congregation it has been wishy-washy. I believe only those of the church faith should take communion. But when a Pastor (no longer in my congregation) gives communion to outsiders, and refuses a born, baptized, confirmed member of our church, because this person was living with someone not married to. Is the Pastor guilty of passing moral judgment??
    Reply to this
    1. 3/19/2011 10:20 AM Paul Nelson wrote:
      I knew this would generate some good questions & comments!

      There are two issues here, which while related, are not dependent on each other.  

      The first issue is that of how the congregation practices close(d) communion.  Different congregations and pastors approach this differently.  Some only commune their own congregant members in good standing.  Others allow any LCMS member who clears it with the pastor or elders beforehand to commune.  Others leave the matter more up to the discretion of the pastor, relying on a printed statement of communion policy to guide people to make the appropriate choice for themselves.  A congregation needs to work with the pastor to know what the expectation is, and then the congregation works with the pastor to help communicate that in a loving way to visitors.  If a congregation doesn't clearly know what their communion policy is, and how the pastor is going to handle it, it's opening up a can of worms for misunderstandings and annoyance.

      Once this is established, communicated, and practiced with consistency, the first situation of communing an 'outsider' ought to take care of itself.  Pastor & congregation should act in harmony.  

      The second issue is one of a congregational member who is acting in a way contrary to the faith professed both by the individual in question as well as the congregation.  The situation you describe sounds like the pastor implemented what is traditionally known as the minor ban - a status conveyed on a person to demonstrate the seriousness of their choices and situation, and to ultimately help them see their need for repentance and change.  

      Is the pastor passing moral judgment?  No - Scripture is.  The pastor is charged with applying Scripture to the members of the congregation as necessary.  Sometimes that requires speaking the law.  Sometimes that requires speaking the Gospel.  Sometimes sermons and the reading of Scripture each Sunday is enough to accomplish this.  Other times the pastor needs to apply it specifically to a particular member or members.   

      In the situation you describe, a member - someone who professes and confesses the faith the congregation upholds - is refusing in a public way to live out that faith.  You were apparently aware of the situation, and I'll assume then that others might have been aware of it as well.  In which case a difficult problem presents itself.  The congregation professes and confesses one thing - and has charged the pastor to help teach and preach and protect that confession - but someone in the congregation is acting contrary to it.  What is to be done?  

      The situation could be ignored - in which case people are going to be confused.  The profession of faith in this congregation indicates that this is a sinful situation (living with someone out of marriage).  Yet the congregation permits it.  Does the congregation really believe what it professes, then?  Perhaps it really doesn't.  Perhaps this sort of behavior - and other sorts of behavior that are described as sinful - are really ok.  People are led to believe that sin is not really sin, and they place themselves in spiritual jeopardy.

      Another option is to reject the person and exclude them from the fellowship completely.  This preserves the confession of the congregation and eliminates confusion.  People know that they will be excluded if they engage in flagrant sinful behavior.  

      The third option is to try and find a way in between.  The person is made aware of the inconsistency of their decision, and of the seriousness of the situation because it is something visible to other people (in other words, we aren't in the business of being on a witch-hunt for sin.  But we do need to address sin that is public and visible).   The person is given the opportunity to repent and to work with the pastor towards finding a way of changing the situation (finding a new place to live, etc.).  If this doesn't work, the pastor and the elders then talk with the person.  Again, the person is taken to Scripture to see that their actions are not in keeping with someone attempting to live as a Christian.  Again the person is exhorted to repent and take steps to change their situation.  If they continue to refuse to change, the situation is brought before the entire congregation, and the person is exhorted once again to repent & change.  

      If this is not accepted, then the minor ban can be implemented.  Here is a good article that describes this.   The person is allowed to continue to come and hear the Word preached, but is not allowed to participate in Holy Communion or any other aspects of the congregation beyond coming to hear the Word.  The intent is that this situation is untenable, and that the person will ultimately recognize the seriousness of their choices, repent, and be welcomed back joyfully into the full life of the congregation through confession, absolution, and amendment of their sinful choices.  The congregation, for their part, should stand ready not only to assist with these changes, but to truly forgive and fully welcome the person back without recriminations.  

      Does this help?  It sounds as though the pastor and the congregation needed to have some good conversations about the best communion policy and how to implement it.  While the pastor needs to remain free to act in confidentiality through the process of repeated witnessing and calling to repentance, if and when the decision is made to deny communion, it should be something the entire congregation is aware of, since the pastor is acting on behalf of the congregation in this matter as in every other.  Congregation and pastor need to be mutually supportive in this process, because it could obviously become a situation that is very divisive and damaging rather than healing.  

      Helpful?





      Reply to this
      1. 3/19/2011 1:29 PM Diane wrote:
        Helpful yes, appreciate your straightforwardness, truth does have a sting! Happy ending? Subject married with 2 children, not in a church, children not baptized. My prayers are always there. Thank you so much!
        Reply to this
        1. 3/19/2011 1:42 PM Paul Nelson wrote:
          Ouch.  That's truly unfortunate.  

          This is always one possibility with church discipline - that someone takes offense and rejects the church.  That's never the goal (it's the polar opposite of the goal!), but it is a risk.  But there are equally serious risks in not addressing a situation.  The risk that others will be influenced by what they see, and the overall compromise of a congregation's witness of faith.  Those are pretty major risks in addition to the risk of the individuals in question and their spiritual condition.  I always stress that it's not simply a matter of a pastor & congregation putting their foot down and demanding a change - change may be necessary, and the congregation ought to be willing to be helpful in figuring out how to assist in it.  Even then, it may not have the desired effect of showing someone that they are willfully choosing to live contrary to God's will and in such a way that others may be adversely affected by their witness.  

          The issue of church discipline is a delicate one, to say the least.  It's not something that should be plunged into lightly, and it's one that accompanies much prayer.   As you say, continue to pray!  And I'd be happy to talk with you further in terms of seeing if there's anyone that could approach this family with the goal of healing and restoration taking place!  

          Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.