Lord's Supper"

I really was not bucking for the job when I suggested this topic. However, I did appreciate the chance to thoroughly reread and consider closely the propositions of this production of 15 years ago. That was 10 years after the Walkout and was during the Bohlmann regime. Sam Nafzger, a classmate and friend mine and a protegé of Dr. Bohlmann's, was relatively new at the post of Executive Director.

At the time it came out, it seemed to be a completely adequate booklet. It was, to be sure, quite brief; but that is a positive thing, in my view. People and busy pastors will read it then. I don't know how many of you read it then (or if the younger pastors even possess it now) or have patterned your practices after it, but I have to admit that I did not regularly consult it. I did recall some of its advise and used what I remembered, since it echoed previously learned theology and practice.

Issues raised since its production are what caused it to be recommended again for study.

Like Gaul, the booklet (hereafter referred to as TPLS) is divided into three parts. The Theology, the Practice and Questions and Answers.

The first part sets the Lord's Supper in it's wider context within the Bible and the Gospel. Then the Commission narrows the focus to the context of the Passover in which Jesus puts the Holy Supper into effect for His disciples, but reminds us that this is the New Testament, not the old.

In the section on the Testimony of Holy Scripture, the common and familiar quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke and ! Cor. are pointed to as "the clear claim of Christ" that "His true body and blood are truly present and distributed." Other passages are brought to bear as well that "forthrightly teach the Real Presence." There is no inkling in this production that the Real Presence involves anything but the body and blood of Christ. It does not indicate that you receive the entire Christ, body and soul, personally and completely or any such construct. It refutes, albeit gently and too briefly, both the Reformed and Roman notions of the "presence" of the whole Christ either spiritually or in either the bread or wine by virtue of Transubstantiation. In several footnotes the presence of Christ in the Supper is mentioned, but not in connection with the doctrine of the Real Presence of His body and blood in the bread and wine.

The Lord's Supper "is based on Christ's Atonement." The words "poured out" and "given" "underscore the sacrificial nature of His death." "For you" and "for many" in the Words of Institution stress the same point. I believe that this is a very important point to stress in current sacramental theology when some speak about the body and blood of "the resurrected Christ" being offered at the Supper. This is conjecture that runs contrary to the clear words of Christ in the Verba. The question: "Where do the body and blood come from that you receive with your mouth in the bread and wine?" is an important one to answer from Scripture. They do not come from the manger or the throne of heaven, but from the cross. They are the blood "shed" and the body "given" for you. And that took place at the cross. It is the dying or dead body and blood of Christ that atoned for your sins and that can forgive those sins in the Holy Supper.

The Lord's Second Coming is related to the Supper because of His words "until I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" and "show the Lord's death till He comes." TPLS makes only one of what most of us would say are two important points: 1) participating in the Holy Supper means you believe He will come again (duh!) and also that 2) we should continue to "do this" until He returns. This second point is not made. Perhaps the CTCR thought it too elementary to state.

Jesus use of plural verbs and pronouns and Paul's addressing the "church at Corinth" shows that this eating and drinking is a churchly activity. While "church" is not defined at this point, it might be assumed that the CTCR means "congregation." Vertical and horizontal dimension are mentioned. One must examine himself before God and behave "in a Christian manner" with the brothers. A hate filled communicant is sinful, and unbelief in "Christ's promise" brings judgment (not condemnation.). Since the Supper is a corporate activity, private mass is rejected quoting SA II ii, 8-9. is a corporate word. You can't share something with someone when you are alone.

The final section of the first part on the theology of the Lord's Supper ends as it began, with a testimony about Scripture itself. Perhaps this is beating a dead horse, but the horse was still twitching in 1983. The CTCR I suppose, had to make the point frequently that the Scripture was the only rule and norm from which the true church drew its lifeblood, its principles of faith and life, its (watch out for that dreaded word) doctrine. TPLS makes the point that we only know about the Lord's Supper from the Scripture and nothing, not "the early church, the Reformation church, reason, science, or philosophy," "possess an authority which is equal to the Scripture." I was particularly pleased that CTCR quoted FC Ep VII, 42 where it states that "the simple words of Christ's testament" is the source of the teachings of the Lutheran Church.

In a misplaced "Excursus on Communion Practice in the Early Church" (It belongs in the Part on Practice.) CTCR makes note of several practical concerns of the Early Church. The Pauline concern to separate the Holy Supper from the daily supper and the suppers of the pagan world ("dogs"). Closed communion was the practice, and one of the finest books ever published by CPH (Still in demand, but no plans to reprint it.), Elert's Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries is quoted. Two things hindered participation in these years: a sinful life and false teaching. This is, of course, accurate as far as it goes, but it fails to say that the one who followed a false teacher, who was under a false teaching or heretical bishop, was also refused communion. (Elert, p. 115) This omission is quite telling in the "close (closed) or loose (pastoral permission)" communion debates. TPLS does not at this point help the case of truth, even though what it says is true. One really needs "the rest of the story."

The Confessional Witness section summarized the doctrine of the Symbols in Six theses with appropriate citations:

1. The Lord's Supper offers and conveys forgiveness of sins.
2. The Lord's Supper offers the truly present body and blood of Christ.
3. The Lord's Supper strengthens faith.
4. The Lord's Supper imparts power for Christian living.
5. The Lord's Supper is an act of thankful adoration.
6. The Lord's Supper is a celebration of Christian fellowship.

Thesis 5 is interesting, since it seems to me that Tappert, which TPLS uses, says something different than the English of the Triglotta. This article is about the Mass, not just the Lord's Supper, but deals with the "ceremony" surrounding the Supper. I may not be understanding Tappert.

Part Two deals with the more interesting aspects to the parish pastor: The Practice of the Lord's Supper.

It is always a temptation to make rules about the Supper and to use the theology and teachings of the Scripture as clubs to enforce compliance with the words of Christ. That would be practical. However, to make the Sacrament a Law rather than a Gospel means is contrary to the Word and the Confessions. But, the Forward crowd is right about this. Convention resolutions can never bring about concord about the Lord's Supper. The only thing that can bring about concord here is Christ's Word and the Gospel. And who is it who is the proclaimer and defender of the Gospel? Not the Synod, not the Synodical or District President, not the Circuit Counselor. It is the pastor of every local congregation who must answer to His Lord, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood he distributes to the faithful only or also to the "dogs." So this booklet may be helpful to each pastor as he searches the integrity of his soul and his desire to be faithful to His Bishop in blessing, rather than harming the flock.

The Prologue quotes FC SD X, 9 (Church Usages) about the ceremonies that surround the Lord's Supper as a pattern of "evangelical practice." Other passages could have been quoted, but this one particularly seems to be chosen to undermine the unity of practice the LCMS had generally had up until so many began to attend "the third Seminary" of the LCMS, and begin to put the sociological principles they learned there into play in their congregations. Many tend to read this with great overriding emphasis on the "power to change, reduce or to increase ceremonies according to its circumstances." They neglect to go to the next part: ". . ' as long as it does so without frivolity and offense but in an orderly and appropriate way, as at time may seem profitable, beneficial, and salutary for the good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum and the edification of the church." But all that will continue to be discussed for another decade or so, until these principles are shown not to grow the church but to destroy it, as statistics are already beginning to show.

"Practice in Accord With the Words of Institution" is the first section and deals immediately with the Consecration. "Because the Words (verba) of Institution are the very heart of the sacramental action, they should always be employed. It is through Christ's word and its power, not through the action of the celebrant, that Christ's body and blood are present in the bread and wine." (Emp. mine.) When consecrated bread and wine are taken to the sick, the sacramental verba should be repeated for the communicant. "Christ's word, the elements, and the distribution are to be Biblically held together (Mark 14:22-25) [16]

[16] Martin Chemnitz's reply to the question of whether the body and blood of Christ are present in the consecrated elements if they are laid up, enclosed, or carried about, and not used and distributed, is most appropriate: "Christ did not institute this Sacrament in such a way that, even if no one uses it, or if it is changed into something else than He Himself commanded, it nevertheless is His body and blood, but in the very words of institution He prescribed the form of that which was commanded, how it is to be observer and used, and that not only for a time but to the end of the world, 1 Cor. 11:26. And use surely does not make a Sacrament, but the Word, ordinance, and institution of Christ. And there is a difference between the essence of a Sacrament and its use. But Christ so ordered and arranged the words of institution in the form of a testament, as He wanted the Sacrament to be an act in which bread and wine are taken, blessed, or consecrated, as they say, then offered, received, eaten, and drunk. And Christ says of that which is blessed, which is offered, received, eaten and drunk: This is My body; this is My blood. Therefore when the bread is indeed blessed but neither distributed nor received, but enclosed, shown, and carried about, it is surely clear that the whole word of institution is not added to the element, for this part is lacking: He gave [it] to them and said, Take and eat. And when the word of institution is incomplete there can be no complete Sacrament. In the same way it is also no true Baptism if the Word is indeed spoken over the water, but if there is no one who is baptized" (Ministry, Word, and Sacraments, trans. Luther Poellot [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981], p. 121).

The Sacrament is to be conducted in a reverent, unhurried manner. To rush "or to insert some personal idiosyncrasy into the consecration is to detract the people's attention from the sacrament" is not good. "Christ's word, the elements, and the distribution are to be Biblically held together "

The Elements are the subject of section two. Although the word for regular bread ( ) is used in the Verba, scholars have agreed from the beginning that unleavened bread ( µ ) was used at the Institution because that was what was used at the Passover. The wine, is not specified either as to type or color. That is must be grape wine is from the term "fruit of the vine" Jesus used. We also know that wine was used at Passover and that some Corinthians became drunk on it. Substituting something other than these is not suggested, but rather pastoral directions to the Gospel should suffice.

This is extremely relevant because of the many congregations in Texas and Synod who offer grape juice along with wine at the Lord's Supper, if that is what they can still honestly call it after they have modified it. I will soon have a partial list of Texas District congregations who publicly state that they do this. The recent Synodical convention also passed a resolution giving brotherly, Christian guidance to those who are or are considering the use of grape juice: "Don't do it." Will the brothers plead "This is an adiaphora?" Will they admit they are Reformed?

Post Communion Reverence (item c) is a hot topic now that so many congregations throw their shot glasses with wine still in them in a trash barrel and put them out for the garbage man to haul off to the dump. While we have contended that the blood of Christ is present in the use (eating and drinking) of the Sacrament, we have always treated the remains with care and dignity, pouring the wine on the ground or in a piscina that connects to the ground rather than the sewer. Some pastors and elders consume the reliquae. We treat those things that have been used by God for holy purposes with reverence. Holy Cross of Dallas' church building was decommissioned in a formal service. It was not just sold to the highest bidder and then razed or turned into a pawn shop. The Reformed show no reverence for these things because they are only symbols, not sacred items. There is a lot of Reformed influence among us.

Practices in Accord with the Doctrine of the Office of the Holy Ministry is an interesting and relevant one today. Basically, the CTCR says only ordained pastors should conduct sacramental services.

The Augsburg Confession underscores the importance of a regularly called pastor for the administration of Holy Communion:

It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call (AC XIV).

Our teachers assert that according to the Gospel the power of keys or the power of bishops is a power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute the sacraments (AC XXVIII, 5).

"It is common practice in our Eucharistic worship to provide for confession and absolution. Normally this occurs in the public service wh

ere the congregation corporately confesses its sin and the pastor pronounces the forgiveness of sins. Lutherans also provide for private confession and absolution in those cases where a terrified conscience seeks consolation from God's holy Word. Through confession and absolution whether private or corporate, the Gospel is clearly articulated in a manner which properly prepares the communicant for the Lord's Supper."

The only comment I might offer here is that the Law may also need to be clearly articulated previous to the application of the Gospel. We are a Law and Gospel church.

The next section is on the "Practice in Accord with the Doctrine of the Church."

1. Fellowship Considerations

"Inasmuch as Communion fellowship Biblically embodies the confession of a common faith (1 Cor. 10:17; Acts 2:42) for it is a theological definition of the one true faith, not a sociological- empirical description of whatever faith a group finds itself agreed in--it is necessary for the church to guard itself from doctrinal fractures of that fellowship (1 Tim. 1:3-11). To indiscriminately admit even well-intentioned people to Holy Communion is neither to honor God nor love our fellowmen (1 Cor. 11)."

It has long been our principle that our practice of Close(d) Communion is less connected with the doctrine of the Supper and more with the doctrine of church fellowship. Forward's recent attempt to determine who comes to the Table by asking the four questions on the little communion card without regard to their public confession is completely contrary to the TPLS document and other long-standing statements of the Christian Church and the LCMS.

"Some clever people imagine that the Lord's Supper was instituted for two reasons. First, it was supposed to be a mark and witness of profession, just as a certain type of hood is the mark of a particular monastic profession. In the second place, Christ was supposed to be very pleased with a mark that took the form of a meal symbolizing the mutual union and friendship among Christians because banquets are symbols of agreement and friendship. But this is a secular idea that ignores the chief use of what God has instituted. It talks only about the practice of love, which even profane and secular men understand; it does not talk about faith, whose true meaning very few understand (Ap XXIV, 68; cf. FC SD VII, 59)."

Not only does this speak to the practices of many pastors and congregations in our "fellowship," but it also raises questions about placing the Lord's Supper in the general category of "table fellowship" that one of our distinguished professors has done. The Supper is not just one of many table fellowship meals; it is The Lord's Supper.

Close Communion [24] is the next topic.

[24] While the term "closed Communion" has a longer history (cf. W. Elert, ch. 7) 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' 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 (cf. 1967 Res. 2-19).

Again TPLS highlights the disagreement between the Synod and those who want to claim a distinction between "Close" and "Closed" Communion. Pieper used the English terms "closed communion" and "open communion" in the German edition of his Opus Magnus, but the editors changed this to "close" when they published the English translation. Dr. Nagle, disagreeing with TPLS, says the term "close" is nonsensical. It is not opposite of "open," and it implies degrees; whereas, "closed" is an absolute term. He demonstrates that "close" communion was adopted from the Baptists by way of the now defunct ALC. There is a lot of Reformed influence among us, and we don't even know it.

"In keeping with the principle that the celebration and reception of the Lord's Supper is a confession of the unity of faith, while at the same time recognizing that there will be instances when sensitive pastoral care needs to be exercised, the Synod has established an official practice requiring "that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with us." [28] By following this practice whereby only those individuals who are members of the Synod or of a church body with which the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship are ordinarily communed, pastors and congregations preserve the integrity of their witness to the Gospel of Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the Lutheran confessional writings." (emp. mine.)

[28] 1967 Res. 2-19. See also 1969 Res. 3-18 and 1981 Res. 3-01. Cf. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, III, p. 381. Pieper begins his discussion concerning who is to be admitted to the Lord's Supper by stating: "Christian congregations, and their public servants, are only the administrants and not lords of the Sacrament. ... On the one hand, they are not permitted to introduce 'Open Communion': on the other hand, they must guard against denying the Sacrament to those Christians for whom Christ has appointed it." To be sure, a heavy responsibility rests on pastors in making decisions as they evaluate those exceptional cases of pastoral care where persons who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS desire to receive the Lord's Supper. However, part of the pastor's responsibility in such situations involves informing individuals desiring Communion also of their responsibility regarding an action which identifies them with the confessional position of the church body to which the host congregation belongs and their willingness to place themselves under the spiritual care of the pastor in that place.

This quote of Pieper seems to leave open the possibility that we may commune Aunt Tilley, an ELCA member, who is visiting because she was confirmed 40 years ago in this LCMS church and knows and believes in the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine. But, no. Pieper later says that "members of heterodox churches must have severed their connection with the heterodox body and have declared (I presume publicly before the congregation by becoming a member, and not just privately to the pastor) their acceptance of the true doctrine before they commune with the congregation." Vol. III, p. 385 Why does TPLS not include these words of Pieper? Your suspicion is as good as mine. When the "closed communion" is not closed, it is "open."

It seems fitting that we should define the terms "situations of emergency" and " special cases of pastoral care" officially. The unofficial versions I have heard are: in cases of the terrified conscience and imminent death (sick bed or storming the beach at Normandy). Methodist Uncle George who is here for his nephew's confirmation and thinks it would be nice to commune with Billy is not an emergency situation, although we may feel bad that he cannot commune.

The Lord's Supper in the context of Extracongregational Settings is one that needs some reexposure.

"The New Testament (1 Corinthians) assumes that Holy Communion will be celebrated in a context where the faith and life of the communicants are known. The congregational setting, under normal circumstances, is the locus where the following, Scripturally mandated Communion practices can be carried out in an evangelical manner and in accord with the doctrines of church and ministry, and where the mutual responsibility of pastors and members to each other is safeguarded."

The guidelines, rules and regulations that attend such an administration, in order to safe guard it from abuse, are so numerous that it is often safer and more faithful not to have the Lord's Supper at some big rally or gathering than to try to conform to all the precautions. I have often heard pastors excuse their lax communion practice with the "We are so big that we can 't possibly know everyone who comes to the altar" mantra, blaming the Holy Spirit for their sins. I don't offer the Sacrament at Circuit Pastor's Conferences because it is unnecessary these days. All of us, I presume, receive in our own congregations either by our own hand or that of an appointed elder the Sunday before or after. Besides, the Supper is to be a congregational affair, as discussed in the above theology section, and we do not invited our congregations and often there are no members there. Who asks the congregation if such a celebration is okay with them? These celebrations border on "private masses."

I want to briefly refer only to several "Question and Answers" of Part III, since most of them are very good and should be taken to heart by all of us. It is my opinion that the answers to the questions were written by different members of the Commission, perhaps without consultation. There are apparent contradictions between themselves and the body of the booklet.

3. Is it appropriate to have Holy Communion in private homes or other settings and at times other than Sunday's congregational worship?

". . .when groups within a congregation desire to have Holy Communion in special settings, care should be taken to avoid this practice. Dr. C.F.W. Walther's counsel in this regard is well taken:

In order that the Word of God may have full scope in a congregation, the congregation should lastly tolerate no divisions by way of conventicles, that is, of meetings for instruction and prayer aside from the divinely ordained public ministry, 1 Cor. 11:18; Jas. 3:1; 1 Cor. 12:29; Acts 6:4; Rom. 10:15: "How shall they preach except they be sent?" [31]

. . . Since the Lord's Supper is the church's confession of its unity in faith and practice, the whole congregation, in keeping with responsible pastoral care and established practices for admission to the sacrament, is properly invited and welcome at the Lord's Table.

This appears to go against the "permission" given by silence in the "Extracongregational Services" section. The same concerns go for the questions about the Supper on campuses and at weddings. "While there are no explicit passages of Holy Scripture which would preclude a nuptial Communion, there are weighty reasons to discourage such celebrations under normal circumstances. First, it is clear that the Lord's Supper is at the center of the public worship of the Christian congregation (cf. discussion on pages 8-9, 23, 28-29)." Wedding and funerals are occasional services, not Divine Services with the Sacrament. The CTCR should have said, "No" (as it did in other places) because of the following reasons, instead of leaving the door open.

7. May the elders take the consecrated elements to the sick and to shut-ins after the Communion service?

"The chief consideration regarding such a practice is that the role of the pastor in the sacramental life of the church should not be displaced. The opportunity to conduct a brief service of confession and absolution, to involve other family members in the private Communion, and to be a shepherd for the flock suggests that whenever possible the pastor will distribute the elements to the communicants (cf. pp. 13-15)."

After stating the principle, the CTCR immediately goes against it with a "wherever possible." And sinful human beings, pastors and people alike, will find a great number of "impossibilities." So we end up like the Church of Christ. There is a lot of Reformed influence among us.

13. Can a qualified male assist with the distribution of the elements in the service of Holy Communion?

Yes. (Material deleted)

14. May women serve as assistants in the distribution of the Lord's Supper?

While some might argue that assisting the presiding minister in the distribution of the elements is not necessarily a distinctive function of the pastoral office, the commission strongly recommends that, to avoid confusion regarding the office of the public ministry and to avoid giving offense to the church, such assistance be limited to men.

Good gravy. Some can argue anything. The argument that assisting at the Supper is not a function of the pastoral office is specious and totally wrong. Did they not read the Augsburg Confession?

1] That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. Bente, F., Concordia Triglotta, (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Northwestern Publishing House) 1997.

Why did not the CTCR say this and save the Synod a lot of trouble in the present?

15. Is it fitting that noncommuning children join their parents at the Communion rail?

"The propriety of this practice is best decided by the local congregation. While it provides an excellent opportunity for parents to educate their children in the meaning of the Lord's Supper and permits the entire family unit to approach the altar, the practical concerns of decorum and appropriateness for the entire congregation should be considered. The key question should be whether, in a given context, the congregation's focus on the sacrament is sharpened or blurred by the presence of children. If a blessing is pronounced, perhaps it could be tied to the child's baptism, lest the impression be given that the benefits of the Sacrament of the Altar are received apart from the reception of the elements."

I don't want you to get upset with my comments. I am not attacking you. I am not trying to impose my personal opinion on you. I am only trying to cause you to think about this in light of what the CTCR has stated about this practice. I am only asking questions.

What is so extraordinary about the opportunity to teach the children about the Sacrament? I have never heard a parent teaching his child about the Sacrament while at the rail. I would shut them up if I did. That is not the place. Neither is the pew. The car after church, the dinner table or family devotions are the time and place for this. You did not learn about the Holy Supper at the rail, yet you learned about it.

What is so spiritual about "approaching" the altar as a family unit? What is so great about going up to the altar and being refused the gifts that Christ is distributing? That may be very damaging to a child. We don't know. What is so special about looking at the pastor lying to you as he pronounced the dismissal: "May the true body and blood of the Lord keep you in the true faith until you enter life everlasting." You have not gotten the body and blood of the Lord. How can they keep me in the faith? Or is just being at the altar some sort of sacrament to the child?

The CTCR again goes against the Confessions and its own advise in dealing with this question:

Ceremonies may be added ". . . as long as it does so without frivolity and offense but in an orderly and appropriate way, as at time may seem profitable, beneficial, and salutary for the good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum and the edification of the church."

Where are the articles in the theological Journals or our church which investigate the Scriptural support, document the history and theology of this practice in the early church, explore the theological and pedagogical rationale for it, show its Old Testament roots, outline its benefits for the church, proclaim how it strengthens the faith and discipline and highlight its unique Lutheran Law and Gospel underlying principles? What is the orderly way it has been introduced through the Lutheran Worship Hymnal? Where are the rubrics in the Hymnal on how to do this and what words of blessing to use? I have been trying to find them. I have come up with nothing serious except a hastily formulated answer by the Texas District Worship Committee; perhaps just the chairman. Are there not other reasons for doing this than other churches do it and "it's nice?"

" . . . to insert some personal idiosyncrasy into the consecration is to detract the people's attention from the sacrament" is advised against. "Christ's word, the elements, and the distribution" that " are to be Biblically held together" should not be separated by extraneous actions.

TPLS cites no Scripture, Confessions, or Synodical Resolutions to support their answer. It reminds me of the Baptist's defense of the age of accountability. "We gladly believe that God does not hold the retarded and children accountable for their sins." Optimism, a warm fuzzy, is not a sound reason for developing doctrine or practice.

17. Does it matter whether a congregation uses individual glasses or the common cup to distribute the consecrated wine?

"In the absence of a specific Scriptural mandate, either method of distribution, when performed in a reverent manner, is acceptable. Many Christians prefer the use of the common cup because of its symbolism as representative of the oneness of the body of Christ--the church--and because there is reason to believe that Christ used this method of distribution. Any decision in this area is to be marked by Christian liberty and charity."

Look at the old woodcuts of Luther and Bugenhagen distributing the Lord's Supper. See any "shot glasses?" No. Read the words of Jesus. Any mention of "cups?" No. Only "the cup!" It may not be a mandate, but it certainly is a consistent statement and may indeed be included in Christ's word: "Do this. . " Who cares what many people prefer? What does the Lord prefer? What does the CTCR mean by "reason to believe that Christ used this method of distribution?" Does not the Word state that this is what He did? If it means "do as I do in the use of the Supper" then this is the way Christ wants his disciples to do it. The "uncommon cup of the Lord" is a Scriptural, dominical symbol, not a human one, of the unity of the church. "Christian liberty and charity" says that in the case of my having the flu or having just disposed of a big wad of Red Man, I will not uncharitibly insist on the Chalice, but consent to refrain from the Sacrament that day.

In summary, most of this booklet gives excellent advise; but as I have pointed out, it has a few omissions and points that need clarifying. The Synod seems to slowly be dealing with these as the years go by. It just seems unnecessary to have to do the work the CTCR is supposed to do.

There were a number of other items that struck me as strange:

The CTCR does not use the term" inerrant" with regard to the Scripture. I wonder if this was deliberate.

The traditional term "Means of Grace" not used at all in the document or the footnotes.

"Holy Communion" is preferred term referring to the Sacrament, not"Lord's Supper" or "Sacrament of the Altar" as is most customary in Lutheran circles. The general Protestants and the Reformed prefer "Holy Communion" as well. Is this coincidence? There is a lot of Reformed influence among us.

The phrase "power for Christian living" is used in place of "life" or Christian life as one of the purposes for which we have the Lord's Supper. It is the desire for "power" in our lives that leads to so much sin. It is in submission to Christ that true worship and service lie. This uncharacteristic term for Lutherans is most often heard from Reformed pulpits and authors. Power is foreign to Lutherans who look to Romans 6: 22 ". . . having been made free from sin, and become servants to God, and the end (is) everlasting life." Power stems from and returns to Law. True freedom from hell flows from the Gospel. True freedom is in submission to the Word of Christ, not trying to get our own way and certainly not trying to make the Holy Supper anything else that what the Redeemer made it for you and all Christians, no matter how good our intentions and motives.

This booklet is on the LCMS webpage in three parts under CTCR documents if you do not have it. There are many other CTCR porductions there as well.