Text from:
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations of Lutheran Church--Canada
For purposes of this discussion, the term "closed communion" is being used in place of the more common "close communion" or the increasingly used "close(d) communion," because 1) it is theologically more precise and less prone to misinterpretation, and 2) it is the term that Lutherans have traditionally used to refer to the practice.1 The term refers to the practice of admitting to the Sacrament those who are incorporated into the same confessional fellowship and excluding those who are not. While the term "close communion" in Lutheran circles originally meant nothing different than the original "closed communion," the attempt to add an experiential element to the meaning of the term, namely the "closeness" with one another experienced by those who receive the Sacrament, makes it advisable to return to the use of the original term, which best sums up the biblical data and which is linguistically more precise.
From time to time, I have opportunity to see bulletin annoucments concerning a congregation's communion practices. Occasionally the word "closed" is used. On other occasions the word "close" is used.
As a loving and evangelical reminder, the practice of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod is "that the pastors and congregations of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod continue to abide by close communion, which includes the necessity of excersizing responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstances . . ." (underlinings mine) - 1986 LCMS Convention Resolution 3-08.
The LCC document recognizes that there has been a change in recent times in the terms used to describe the practice of closed communion; it stresses that when the term "close" first was introduced into our circles, it was identical in meaning to "closed."
What many confessional LCMS theologians, pastors and laity are concerned about is the relaxing of the basic church fellowship principles that we have held over the years under the guise of "responsible pastoral care." In much testimony* it is clear that many pastors are communing people after very brief instruction periods and even shorter examinations at the church door. Occasionally we hear of Methodist parents being communed after the son or daughter asks the pastor if it would be okay. Others have been approached by members to see if a friend who is ELCA can commune because she happens to be visiting for lunch that day. Who could possibly defend this type of practice as "responsible pastoral care?" Where are the admonitions not to deceive ourselves with this kind of shoddy and irresponsible "soul care?"
And what exactly are these which would cause a faithful servant of Christ's Supper to share it with someone who is not in fellowship with his congregation/confession? Our former practice was that our chaplains would commune only those who believed in the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine when soldiers were going into battle with the possiblity that they would lose their lives. Pastors would commune other Lutherans entering serious surgery or when near death, if a clergyman of their own Lutheran confession could not be located.
Is Aunt Tilly's visit from Cleveland, OH, for a month sufficient reason to weaken our confession to commune her? Is fear of asking people to go through our ridiculously abbreviated Adult Class (six hours in many cases) too much of an offense? Is fear one of those "extraordinary situations and circumstances" that is emphasized by many who avoid "closed communion?" The LCC's CTCR and many conservative and confessional theologians, pastors and lay people do not think so.
Perhaps our brothers to the north will help to restore our own practice to its Biblical and confessional roots and Gospel bearing function. Perhaps it is not too late for Missouri to regain its unity in fact as well as in word.
* (Documentation is very hard to come by because errorists rarely will write their positions and practices down. They always want to talk face to face or on the telephone. When asking one of these practitioners about their practice, they are fearful of the written, exact examinable page. "Talk to him when you are alone with him" excludes written documentation, it appears. Aren't we glad that Luther, the Reformers and Walther were not afraid of confessing their faith on paper?)