Rev. A.J. Loeschman
On the surface, the "Battle for the Bible" has been won for a long time in the Missouri Synod. Unity in the Word has ostensibly been reestablished among the clergy and congregations of the LCMS. The claims, "We agree in Doctrine. We are unified" are publicized all over the Synod and the world. No one, especially at our seminaries, is publicly attacking the doctrine of the Word anymore. Purportedly, all pastors and congregations in the Synod believe the same things about the Word of God.
Some in the Synod, however, have noted that there are differing practices between pastors and congregations. Questions concerning the propriety of these activities are turned away with accusations that those mean-spirited conservatives don't want any change or aren't willing to give up their traditional ways so that the church can grow. Some even refer to the Lutheran Confessions, Augustana VII, which states that "it is sufficient for the true unity of the church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word." "Ceremonies, instituted by men" do not have to be alike. Differences in rites of worship or church government do not divide the church, only difference in doctrine. And we all are united in doctrine, right?
Within our Synod, District Presidents can rise to the podium and assure their constituents in bold and familiar terms about their personal belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the sacredness of the Holy Ministry and closed communion, that bring forth in Lutherans the blessed emotions of joy and brotherly love. Their Synod and Districts pass evangelical resolutions regarding these doctrines. Then in the course of their supervisory work they allow pastors in their Districts and under their spiritual care to abuse and misuse the Scriptures. They discredit the Office of the Ministry by applying human standards to judge the effectiveness and faithfulness of pastors, harassing outspoken confessional pastors and allowing congregations to "fire" pastors they "don't like." They allow pastors, on the claim that they are "putting the best construction on everything" and presuming that "pastoral care" is being exercised, to lead their congregations in the practice of open or semi-open communion at Altars that are pledged, by their membership in the Missouri Synod, to a Biblical evangelical Lutheran Sacrament. Some District Presidents have challenged outrightly the common understanding of closed communion in a document entitled "A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice." (Copy included in Affirm, Vol. XX, No.3, Dec. 1996). One must, at least, admire their open honesty, while so many, with no intergrity, are claiming to practice "closed," while actually administering open communion
. Do you agree with me that the major problem in the Missouri Synod is not that it does not for the most part "have and teach" true doctrine in our Books of Concord, doctrinal resolutions, and hymnals but it does not confess, practice, defend, live by and regulate itself by what it has and, presumably, teaches?
And will you also agree with me when I state that the differences in practice derives from different understandings and commitments to the doctrine of the Word and the Lutheran Confessions. Practice grows from the soil in which the roots are grounded. "By their fruits you will know them," Jesus said.
In this climate of suppressed doctrinal honesty, the notion of Selective Fellowship deserves a second look. Selective Fellowship has not been discussed much these days, because it is now a sin of the liberals, or moderates, not of the conservatives. If conservatives were to openly practice selective fellowship with an orthodox Lutheran Synod, they would come under the hammer of discipline.
For our purposes, the historical background of Selective Fellowship is generally found in the early history of Lutherans in the United States. When confessional pastors in the Missouri Synod found other confessional pastors and congregations in heterodox Synods, they would naturally want to practice altar and pulpit fellowship with them. The Synod has encouraged those LCMS men to wait until the Synods establish fellowship or those pastors and congregations came into the LCMS before practicing fellowship.
So, historically, the Missouri Synod has been against it.
Concordia Theological Monthly in the September, 1944 issue's Theological Observer section notes that the term "selective fellowship" was being used extensively in reference to the Norwegian Synod's June, 1944, resolution encouraging "selective fellowship," i.e. altar and pulpit fellowship with pastors and congregations that "adhere to the historic standard of the Lutheran Church" even if the synods have not agreed to such fellowship. The Observer continues with the observation that "The term is based on the idea that it is right and proper for us to have fellowship with people who are of the same faith as we, even if they belong to a church body which is not in fellowship with our own organization."
The Observer continues with a prophecy that seems to have been fulfilled in these latter days. "We fear that if this principle were adopted as the basis of our policy, endless confusion would result." "For the rank and file, the great majority of the church members on both sides of the fence, great bewilderment would result, we apprehend." The writer concludes with the admonition: "Let 1 Cor. 14:40 and 1 Tim. 3:15 not be overlooked."
Let us not overlook at these passages, but look at them in turn.
1 Corinthians 14:40 (NIV) "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." This is a general guideline given by the Apostle under the direction of the Holy Spirit as a conclusion to a section of his letter regarding a number of matters of the practice of Christian doctrine (the gifts mentioned verses 1-25 of this chapter) in everyday life and in the worship of the congregation, referenced in the last part of the chapter. If this passage's principle is followed, the "bewilderment" the writer warns about can be avoided. People will know who to fellowship with at the altar and pulpit in the true unity of heart and mind.
1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." The Apostle here reminds Timothy what is the basis of proper conduct among believers, i.e. "the pillar and foundation of the truth." This refers to the doctrinal unity and proper behavior that exists between brothers and sisters in the church, especially those who are bishops and deacons. Concern for the truth of the Word of God is damaged when this conduct is not a clear witness to the truth.
In addition, the 1946 issue of Concordia Theological Monthly, Miscellanca Section, raises the question "whether the mutual recognition of the pastors and congregations in question is a matter of such urgency that the action of the whole church body cannot be awaited."
The matter of urgency with regard to the fellowship of the Lord's Supper is something that needs to be restudied. In recent times there seems to be pressure to share the Sacrament on every occasion, not only with those of differing denominations, but within our own Synod's fellowship. The example of the early church's daily or weekly communion is often brought up as the reason for this. There is no doubt that this was very proper and necessary in the circumstances of first century Christianity. The question we need to address as an adjunct to this topic of Selective Fellowship is: "How urgent is the sharing of the Sacrament in our 20th century circumstances."
In discussions between the American Lutheran Church and the LCMS that seemed to be going well and promised a declaration of fellowship in the near future, the LCMS passed a resolution in Ft. Wayne, 1941, recommending continuing negotiations, but that stated its objection to selective fellowship even under those optimistic circumstances: "That in the meantime it be understood that no pulpit-,altar-, or prayer-fellowship has been established between us and the American Lutheran Church; and until such fellowship has been officially declared by the synods concerned, no action is to be taken by any of our pastors or congregations which ignores the fact that we are not yet united." Documents Of Lutheran Unity in America, Wolf, p. 167
Presumably, the issues of honesty and confusion regarding doctrine and procedure on the part of the American Lutheran Church were at the heart of this resolution.
Herman Sasse wrote an informative article in 1957 for the Australasian Theological Review, (September 1957, pp.45-62) in response to the American Lutheran Church's passage of a resolution that read:
Wherever congregations and pastors of the ALC find they are mutually agreed in confession and practice with congregations and pastors of other Lutheran Church bodies they may in good conscience practice fellowship both in worship and work.
(quoted in Logia, Vol. V, number 3, Holy Trinity 1996, p.21)
This practice of selective fellowship wrought by church politicians who then rely on theologians to justify the decision "threatens the existence of the church as well as the existence of true theology," Sasse writes. With examples from church history, he demonstrates how the church has practiced faithful fellowship principles until recently. He points out the serious theological and moral pitfalls of selective fellowship. In contrast with numerous current mission statements and modern church growth principles, Sasse declares that "the first concern of every congregation must be to see that the means of grace are kept in their purity." This is one reason why pastors and congregations join synods. Synods are de jure humano, whole congregations are divine institutions. This does not, however, give the pastor or congregations permission to practice cross denominational fellowship without regard for the synod to which they belong, claiming that fellowship is an adiaphoron.
"If a congregation has joined a synod, brotherly love would demand that not only the consciences of the "weak" - whoever these might be in a specific case - should be respected but that the good order should be maintained without which the synod cannot serve properly the local congregation. If in such adiaphora arbitrary freedom should be practiced, as e.g. with the introduction of new liturgies, the adiaphora might soon cease to be adiaphora. The introduction of modern Eucharistic Prayers with Roman or Eastern elements would by all means involve a doctrinal problem. Thus the establishment of new rites or even selective fellowship would in the last analysis mean the destruction of synods, the atomization and disintegration of our Lutheran Churches."(quoted in Logia, Vol. V, number 3, Holy Trinity 1996, p. 32)
So now ... the times, they are a'changing. The tables are turned 180 degrees. Now it is the "moderates" in the LCMS who are, of course in the name of Christian love, aping their liberal forefathers of the ALC, practicing selective fellowship. Those practicing open or semi-open communion, that is contrary to the formerly and formally agreed on "closed or close communion" of the church catholic are now the ones who are practicing selective fellowship. And as Sasse so plainly assets: "'Open Communion' is no communion at all; it is not the sacrament of the New Testament."
What are some of the reasons given for deserting the longstanding and biblical practice of honest and true fellowship?
1. Choosing whom to commune on the basis of personal preference is practicing Selective Fellowship. Pastors will say that they know this person or that to be a true Christian and to believe what the Lutheran Church teaches about the Lord's Supper, so they permit them to commune at the altar which the Holy Spirit has given them to administer. If this is so, what is the urgency to commune them before they separate themselves from the church body that is not in doctrinal agreement with the LCMS? Or has it become permissible for true Christians to remain in a church where false or weak doctrine is taught and practiced?
In a former parish there was a woman who was a still Roman Catholic and had been permitted by the former pastor to commune with her husband. She claimed to have gone to instruction but just couldn't make up her mind about joining the church. When I came and, over a course of time, made it known that non-members would not be communed unless there were true emergency circumstances, she took the instructions over again and was confirmed.
2. Choosing whom to commune on the basis of potential numerical growth is practicing Selective Fellowship. Pastors will be told in the Church Growth Seminars and by some ambitious laymen that closed communion is chasing away potential members. The growth sensitive-pastor will, of course, not want to do that, so he will be tempted to commune people who are not Lutherans. Or he will be tempted to "hide away" the celebration of the Eucharist in the lowly traditional service at 8:00 a.m. so as not to offend prospects with the truth in the groovy "seekers service."
For over a century now the LCMS and other confessional denominations have been practicing closed communion, and most people have understood why. They understood because all other denominations in the past practiced closed communion. Now that the modernists in these groups have abandoned this practice of honestly "pledging allegiance" to the faith one truly believes to be "the one true faith" by communing only at an altar that represents that faith, pastors of the LCMS feel they must compete for members by encouraging people to behave in a dishonest way, too.
3. Choosing whom to commune on the basis of convenience and ease of administration is Selective Fellowship. How often have we not heard from prominent pastors, "I just can't control who comes to the altar. Our church has gotten so big that it is so difficult to know everyone. It would be too unhandy to try to celebrate the Lord's Supper the way the Confessions recommend." These people act as if churches became big only in the last ten years. The Wittenburg City Church was probably bigger than 99% of our churches, but Luther and Buggenhagen never used that flimsy excuse to commune Reformed or Roman people. Frankenmuth and Trinity St. Louis were large already a hundred years ago, but did not practice indiscriminate communion in those days.
One of my hobbies is collecting bulletin announcements outlining the practice of "closed" or "close" communion. These can be very plainly and lovingly presented. Even verbal announcements can be warm and friendly while informing guests of the congregation's practice. One of the best verbal announcements of closed communion I have heard was from a priest at San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio at a Wedding Mass where a large number of non-Romans attended. It was gracious and yet clear. If the Roman Catholics can do it, our pastors can too - if they really want to. Ah, and there is the rub. Do they really want to?
Many pastors use announcements that are sufficiently vague that almost any nominal Christian would arrive at the conclusion that he was welcome to commune. There seems to be an unreasonable fear of saying something like "We welcome Lutheran Church Missouri Synod members to commune with us. Others should meet with the pastor before coming forward to the altar." I once had a man tell me that this was an unscriptural way of informing people of our practice, since Christ knew nothing of the Missouri Synod. But Christ did know of true faith and false faith. Reference to denominations is simply a shorthand way to deal efficiently with the problem rather than to avoid dealing with it.
4. Choosing whom to commune on the basis of a differing notion of Pastoral Concern than what the confessions and the synod to which a man belongs is practicing Selective Fellowship. "Grandma is visiting here from Kansas. She's an ELCA Lutheran. She hasn't been here for seven years, and she would like to commune with her daughter and grand children before she goes back home. She may not get back before she dies." What pastor is not touched by such appeals? Pastoral concern for family togetherness is wonderful, but does it present such a situation that the doctrinal, moral, eucharistic, ecumenical and practical errors of Grandmas's denomination should be overlooked? Aside from the fact that she might also be Eastern Star and be hoping to get into heaven by her good works, or a supporter of abortion rights, Grandma needs to be aware that there are serious problems in her church and that she should work to correct them or separate from that false church. Of course, if she is committed to the ELCA agenda, then she has made her choice, and a pastor would be prompting her to lie by coming to an altar the faith of which is different from hers.
The Apology (Tappert, p. 261-262) makes it clear, that while the sacrament is indeed "a sign among men" and a "witness of profession, just as a certain type of hood is the mark of a particular monastic profession," the "principle use of the sacrament is to make clear that terrified consciences are the ones worthy of it and how they ought to use it." Grandma's mediator with the pastor did not mention anything about her desire for the forgiveness of sins to salve her soul's fear of God's wrath. It is just another sign that the people and often the pastors have in the name of "pastoral concern" turned the Lord's Supper into the People's Supper, the Families' Supper, the Church's Supper or the Pastor's Supper. Melanchthon's comments (Tappert p. 262) on this are instructive. "Christ was supposed to be 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 of love, which even profane and secular men understand; it does not talk about faith, whose true meaning very few understand."
5. Choosing whom to commune on the basis of false urgency or necessity is practicing Selective Fellowship. There are pastors who believe that there are no emergency circumstances to give communion to a Lutheran of another denomination. This may be theoretically true, but there may indeed be circumstances that beg the question in the real ministry. The death bed, for example, is not the place to try to convince some simple believing grandma that the Lord's Supper is not absolutely necessary, when all she wants is the assurance of her Lord's forgiveness and salvation. The same may be said of a 19-year-old soldier who is about to storm a beach covered with enemy machine gun fire. Even these circumstances are not "automatic," but require assurance of trust in the real presence of Christ's body and blood and the power of God to forgive through it.
Sasse agrees. "On the battlefield, or in similar cases where death is imminent, a minister of Christ may decide that he ought not refuse the sacrament to a person who believes in Christ as his Savior and wants to receive in faith and penitence that which Christ has sacrificed for him at Calvary, His true body and His true blood, before he passes from this world to the judgement seat of God. The pastor will do this on his own responsibility and the Church will approve of that, though in case she has no right of dispensation. We have to ask for Christ's own dispensation, knowing that He will not refuse it. This is no 'exception,' no 'selective fellowship,' and cannot be used to abolish the rule." (Logia, Vol. V, number 3, Holy Trinity 1996, p.35)
The pastor and congregation need to be concerned about the prospective guest's perceived personal need. Is this a spiritual or psychological or social need? Is the Sacrament necessary for the comfort of the guest's conscience before a life threatening event? Does the guest think that if he does not receive the Sacrament at this time he will be condemned? It probably needs to be said that permission to approach the altar on this basis should never be granted through a third party.
It is also clear that such investigation takes time. Thirty seconds before worship begins is just not enough time to discuss and be assured of such necessity and urgency. If a guest is able to be in the worship assembly, it seems he would be able to meet with the pastor ahead of time, so it is doubtful that such a circumstance is by definition "urgent."
Let us also be clear, those who commune members of non- Lutheran denominations, transfer to and from non-Lutheran denominations, participate in Worship services, weddings and funerals with pastors of other denominations are often not practicing Selective Fellowship, but the sin of Unionism. They are fully aware that the minister of the other denomination is convinced of his denomination's correctness, or at least it's liberality to accept the differences in doctrine of others, and his determination to remain connected with that heterodox group. They know that they are breaking their own denomination's principles of church fellowship, but they feel like they have sufficient reason (don't want to offend a member by refusing to participate in the wedding or funeral) or they don't care about or agree with their church's principles.