Closed Communion in Its Proper Relations

According to Scripture, the practice of closed communion – that is, the practice of giving Christ's body and blood to some, not to others – applies in relation to three groups of people. One group of people consists of members of our own fellowship. The second group is made up of members of other church bodies. The third group, finally, consists of those who are not members of any congregation and are therefore to be considered unbelievers from the outset.

Closed Communion in Relation to those United in the Faith

There are, basically, three groups of members of our fellowship. In the first group are those who are baptized. In the second group are those who are baptized and instructed / confirmed in the faith. In the third group are those who are baptized and instructed / confirmed in the faith but who now are under church discipline due to some public, persistent sin. We do not commune groups one and three, but for different reasons. We do not commune the first group because its members have not been instructed in the faith as summarized in the Small Catechism. They are not communed because they, due to their ignorance and/or young age, cannot examine themselves whether or not they “have faith in these words” (that is, Lord’s Supper’s words of promise: “given and shed for you”), as the apostle (and the Catechism) bids them do (1 Cor. 11:28). We believe that they have saving faith in Christ created and sustained by the gospel in baptism and the word. Yet not everybody who has saving faith is able to examine himself and his faith, something that is required by God’s word prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This is why Lutherans do not commune infants or young children (or the unconscious or sleeping).

“Faith” always goes along with repentance over past sins and an earnest desire to do better in the future. In the case of some in our fellowship, the third group mentioned above, their repentant faith has become uncertain to their fellow Christians as they are known to walk in a way unworthy of the gospel (Phil. 1:27). Their words and actions let us doubt that they are still believers because the works of the flesh have crowded out the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:15-26). It is the duty of every Christian to admonish his sinning brother / sister with God’s word. The point is not to “put them down” but to call them to repentance, back to Christ and his word and flock. This is the opposite of being judgmental; it is loving concern for the erring brother and sister that is frequently commanded and commended in God’s word (Mat. 18:15ff.; Luke 15; 17:3-4; Gal. 6:1; James 5:19-20).

If a brother does not heed the warning and admonition from his fellow Christians, he is no longer to be considered a fellow Christian. He is to be excluded from the Lord’s Supper as an unbeliever (Mat. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:11, 13). This is to be a last, serious call to repentance to him (1 Cor. 5:4-5), so that he, by God’s grace, might eventually save his soul and overcome his sinful nature and not be terminally overcome by it. Once a pastor becomes aware of a person impenitently living in sin, he is to talk to him and, if no change of heart occurs, to suspend him from taking communion for the time being in order to avoid greater damage (1 Cor. 11:29). This is what Paul himself practiced in 1 Cor. 11 by calling those to repentance who had, out of unbelief, acted unworthily and unlovingly at the Lord’s Table. We can, in fact, see the entire First Letter to the Corinthians as Paul’s exercise of pastoral care in view of communion participation, since the letter is addressed to those who are members of his congregations in Corinth, not to those who are outside the church as unbelievers or false believers.

This helps us rightly to understand Judas’ partaking of Christ’s body and blood at the first Supper of Christ. Judas was one of the twelve disciples of our Lord whom he had called and instructed in the mysteries of the kingdom of God for about three years. The Scriptures clearly teach that Judas partook of our Lord’s body and blood when Christ first instituted it in the upper room (Luke 22:19-23, esp. 21). What are we to make of this? Strange as it may seem to us, the gospel accounts of Christ’s last Supper clearly show that the other eleven disciples were not aware of Judas’ betrayal of Christ. Christ spoke about it quite openly, but the other disciples did not understand his words (John 13:21-30). As far as they were concerned, Judas was a fellow believer and apostle. Only Christ in his omniscience knew what Judas would do. And Christ still today knows the heart and mind of all those who approach his table; neither the apostles back then nor pastors today know them. This means, where somebody harbors a sin in his heart; where somebody’s impenitence or unbelief is not known to others, that person ought to abstain from communion by himself. It is our duty to search our own heart and mind, not somebody else’s. We simply go by what meets the ears and eyes, as did Paul and all the apostles and, in fact, Christ at the first Supper. Judas certainly did not benefit from taking the Lord’s Supper, so his case only confirms the need for responsible communion practice, as much as it is possible.

The practice of the Early Church in the time after the apostles confirms this reading of the texts. Those under church discipline were present during the first part of the service dedicated to the preaching of the word. This was to lead them to repentance and faith in the gospel so that they could be restored to the community of faith again. Those who were being instructed in the faith also were present during this part of the service so that they could receive further instruction from the scriptures read and the sermons preached. But after the sermon both groups were ushered out of the sanctuary and the doors of the church were closed; only the faithful remained behind and enjoyed the Lord’s Supper. The “closed doors” of the Early Church’s worship services led to the term “closed communion.”

Martin Luther and the original Lutherans, but also later C. F. W. Walther and the Missouri Synod till after WW II unanimously retained this common Christian practice: they excluded from communion the uninstructed and the impenitent and gave it to those who were well-taught and whose words and acts did not contradict or obscure their faith. They saw this practice as an important help in the church’s Christ-given mission to make disciples by baptizing the nations and teaching them everything Christ commanded the apostles.

Closed Communion in Relation to those in Fellowship with False Teachers

The basic difference between “our own fellowship” and “other church bodies” lies in doctrine: what does a congregation / church body actually teach? Is it in agreement with God’s word or not? All other differences – nationality, social standing, age, geographical location, etc. – are irrelevant in God’s church. We in the Missouri Synod are joined in “pulpit and altar fellowship” with congregations around the world which teach and believe God’s word as we do. Pastors from sister congregations can preach on our pulpits; members of sister congregations can commune at our altars. Those not in church fellowship with us are separated from us because they teach differently. What is more, because we believe that we teach and believe as God’s word would have all Christians believe and teach, those who teach and believe differently than we do teach and believe false doctrine, that is, doctrine that changes the meaning of God’s unchanging word.

God does not want his Christians to believe and teach some of his words correctly, not others (chosen based on what?). He wants them to teach and believe all of them (Matt. 28:20; John 8:31; Acts 2:42; 20:27), as they are clearly revealed in scripture. There ought to be unity in what is taught and believed in the Christian congregation; and this unity, of course, has to be in accord with God’s word (Acts 4:32; 1 Cor. 1:10; Rom. 15:5-6; Eph. 2:19-20). The church is not a freethinker society where everybody can believe as they please, so long as it feels right at the moment or doesn’t bother anybody else.

Obviously, we are not saved by teaching and believing all of God’s word correctly. We are saved by believing that Jesus Christ, God’s and Mary’s Son, lived and died for all our sins and rose after three days bodily. But the gospel doesn’t make rightly believing and teaching all of God’s word optional, left only to the real serious Christians. In fact, the gospel, and the Holy Spirit at work in and through it, makes us eager to believe and teach all of God’s word (2 Cor. 4:13), just as the Spirit makes us eager to live perfectly according to God’s holy will, the Ten Commandments. Teaching and confessing God’s word rightly is a Christian duty, a necessary fruit of faith created by God’s word to begin with (Rom. 10:8-11, 17), just as living according to God’s commandments is such a fruit of our living, saving faith in Christ. Not believing all of God’s word – either intentionally or out of ignorance – is a sin, namely, the sin of unbelief or false belief (2^nd and 3^rd Commandments), just as not living perfectly according to God’s other commandments is a sin. Sins are fruits of the flesh, our sinful, godless nature, not of the Spirit and faith (Gal. 5:15ff.).

Christians deal with sins by means of confession and absolution, not by explaining them away, overlooking them, or excusing them. That is to say, when we are made aware of a belief held by us that is against God’s word, we should abandon it as a grievous sin against God’s majesty revealing itself in scripture. Also, when we see someone else holding a false belief, we should, in all love and patience, point this out to them to call them to repentance. Obviously, we want to do this judiciously, beginning with the most serious, glaring false beliefs, not with some minor point we might cover in Christian love for the time being. Yet we want to focus on the former while not neglecting the latter (see Mat. 23:23).

Calling sinners to repentance is the very work our Savior came to do on earth (Luke 5:32). He did that by preaching God’s holy law and gracious gospel to them. After his resurrection, he sent out his apostles to do the same (Luke 24:47; John 20:21-23). Calling sinners to repentance by the law and to faith by the gospel has been the mission of the church every since. The practice of closed communion, as a “practical” call to repentance to those who believe wrongly, fits nicely into this larger framework of the church’s mission and evangelism, as already seen above (# 1).

Now, why do we have all these many church bodies out there that agree on some things, but not on many others? God’s word teaches that this is so because false teachers and false teachings arise from within the Christian church, or because falsehood is brought in from without (Acts 20:28-29). God permits false prophets to rise up in order to test the faithfulness (and compassion!) of the faithful (Deut. 13:3; 1 Cor. 11:19). Some continue to believe and teach all of Christ’s word given to his apostles; others choose to depart from this word, in whole or in part – and, in fact, every departure from God’s word destroys all of it and changes it from God’s word into our words. God’s word is indivisible as God is indivisible: you sin against it in one place, you’ve sinned against it all (James 2:10). These false teachers manage to divide the one church of Christ by winning some “converts” to their crooked ways. To those converts, the false teachers’ teachings make more “sense” than Christ’s.

The false teachers and their followers will naturally call themselves followers of Christ as well, and they will criticize those who deny them this honorable title. This is how different churches emerge which are in each and every case gathered around a certain body of teaching set forth by certain teachers. Yet the crucial question is: Are their teachings true or false, that is, are they in agreement with the correct meaning of God’s word? There’s no promise in God’s word that those who hold to Christ’s word in all its truth and purity will be the largest of the competing groups. In fact, it is more likely that they will remain a rather small group, a holy remnant elected and preserved by God’s grace alone (see Is. 10:20-22; Rom. 9:25; 11:5). In other words, statistical and experiential criteria will not lead us to the true church; only God’s word will. That church which correctly teaches God’s word as a whole is the group every Christian is to seek and to associate with.

False doctrine is not only a very serious insult to God whose holy word and name it disfigures and abuses (Jer. 23:21-32, 2^nd Commandment), so much so that it is “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1; John 8:44). False doctrine, like sinful living, is also a power to be reckoned with. It can, by strengthening their sinful nature, lead believers away from the truth of God’s word. This is why Christ and his apostles compare it to leaven, yeast, that slowly but steadily works its way through the entire dough and destroys what there is of truth and faith (Matt. 16:6-12; 1 Cor. 5:6-8; Gal. 5:8-9). False doctrine is thus to be avoided also for one’s own sake.

This is why God’s word commands Christ’s people to examine the teachings of their teachers and to avoid those as false prophets who teach falsehood by twisting the meaning of Christ’s word (Deut. 13:1-3; Mat. 7:15-27; John 8:31-32; 10:4-5; Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 3:17-18). We can’t delegate this important duty to others, even though it’s hard work. Everybody has to be convinced in his own mind what he believes and why (Rom. 14:5). We are to believe what we believe based on God’s word and its authority alone. So it is by God’s word that we are called to test every teacher and every teaching. If we find them to be in agreement with God’s word, we are to join and support them as much as we can (Gal. 6:6). If we find them in disagreement with God’s word, we are to confess the truth and admonish them. If that fails, we are to leave them behind as impenitent sinners, withdrawing all material support from them for their good, that is, in order to bring them to their right Christian mind (2 Thess. 3:14-15; Tit. 3:10-11). We are not to follow or excuse or defend them because this would only confirm them in their error.

Now, what does this mean when it comes to the question of whether we should commune those who are members of churches which change Christ’s word first given to the holy apostles? There will be typically two groups: those who are members because they agree with what their false teachers teach; and those who are members who, by God’s extraordinary grace, don’t know what their teachers teach and don’t agree with them. Both groups are called to leave false teachers! Both need to be shown that they, in fact, are members of a pseudo-Christian cult that is based on the shifting opinions of men and not on God’s firm word (Matt. 7:24-27). For the time being, they are to be treated like those whose faith has been obscured to fellow Christians, which, in their case, has happened by the very fact of their fellowship with teachers who change the meaning of God’s unchanging word. If they are true believers, as they claim to be, they should be happy about being delivered from their teachers’ delusions. However, if they refuse instruction and continue to adhere to their false teachers for family or other good reasons, they have revealed themselves as despisers of Christ’s word (Matt. 10:37); they are to be treated like those placed under church discipline (Tit. 3:10-11). Evidently, they are not to be communed till their faith shines forth again in right words and deeds (s. # 1, above). Otherwise, they would be allowed to bring to Christ’s altar a confession other than that given us by God in his word. This is as dangerous as bringing “profane fire,” a fire not given by the Lord, to the Lord’s altar (Lev. 10:1-2). They would do violence to the unity of Christ’s body, the church, which is given in communion (1 Cor. 10:16-17). In other words, since our works and words are offerings and sacrifices to our Lord, they would bring to the Lord’s altar an offering – false doctrine – with which the Lord is not pleased.

Here again we have the unanimous practice of the Early Church in the centuries following the apostles confirming this reading of the Scriptures: early Christian congregations communed only those who agreed with them in all their beliefs, especially when it came to the controversial issues of the day. This agreement was established between bishops, the heads of dioceses, not between individual members. As a member, you were part of Bishop X’s church. If he taught the truth, you were considered to believe the truth; consequently, you were admitted to communion. If he taught falsehood, even in only one point, you were denied communion because, by your remaining with him, you were considered to agree with his words. You had to know the teachings of your bishop (church attendance!), and you were personally and individually held responsible for it. You had to take sides in the serious, and often complex, controversies that took place in the era of the Early Church (doctrines of Trinity and Christ, for starters) and couldn’t sit lukewarmly on the fence. The Early Church’s bishops even gave letters of membership to traveling members (merchants), so that they became known to the bishop at their destination (and to those along the way) and would be communed by him and his priests.

Luther and the early Lutherans, but also Walther and the early Missourians, tenaciously clung to this practice and the doctrine it reflected: If you, e.g., belonged to a church body not in fellowship with the LCMS, you were not given communion at an LCMS altar, even if you came from a “Lutheran” church. Early Missourians knew quite well that there were many Lutheran church bodies around in America; but they insisted that these churches and congregations not only be Lutheran in name, but also in their actual teaching and preaching at every level (congregation, seminary, synod, official publications). Luther and Walther, again, saw this practice as genuinely conducive to the mission of the church to make disciples of all nations, because they defined disciples the way Jesus did: not those who have a superficial knowledge of the faith; who therefore believe truths, half-truths, and lies indiscriminately; and who focus on being good people instead – but those who are baptized and instructed in all the words of the Lord given to his apostles (Matt. 28:19-20) and summarized in the Catechism.

Closed Communion in Relation to Unbelievers

Because salvation is by faith in Christ alone, unbelievers are outside of the kingdom of God of grace. The Lord’s Supper is for those only who are members of God’s kingdom of grace by saving faith in Christ and who are well instructed in the one true faith, that is, Christian doctrine. Christ gave his body and blood first to his twelve disciples, that is, to those men whom he had called and whom he had instructed for three years. Jesus did not offer his body and blood to accidental passersby or curious bystanders or blind seekers for “truth” (Rom. 3:11). He retreated with his long-term students into an enclosed space, the famous “upper room” (Luke 22:12). There is therefore a difference between Jesus’ open meals with sinners and his holy Supper. This difference is found in what is eaten. In the first case, only bread (and wine) is consumed; in the second case, Christ’s body and blood are eaten and drunk with bread and wine. What is consumed determines to whom it is given. The holy is given to those declared holy, not to unholy sinners, that is, unclean dogs and pigs (Matt. 7:6). Faithfully, the apostles did the same after Christ’s ascension into heaven. Their preaching takes place in the open of the temple, synagogues, and other public places (Acts 17:22 and many other texts); but their communion fellowship takes place in the privacy of their homes (Acts 2:46; 20:7-8: “upper room”!). Preaching and baptism make us Christians, we could say; the word and communion preserve us in the faith.

Here again the Early Church’s practice confirms our reading: Unbelievers, that is, those neither baptized nor instructed, were welcome to attend the service of the word, but they were ushered out of the sanctuary when the service of the sacrament began after the sermon. “Holy things to holy people,” is an exclamation that is part of ancient liturgies. In fact, in the first three centuries, when Christianity was an illegal religion in the Roman Empire, unbelievers were typically not brought to the secretive meetings of the church, because they could be spies seeking to pocket a nice reward from the Roman authorities for betraying Christians. Early Lutherans most certainly adhered to this practice of not communing those neither baptized nor instructed, as did early Missourians.

Summary

To sum it all up thus far, we've seen that:

1. those who are baptized but not instructed in the faith are not to be communed, even though they have saving faith created and sustained by the gospel, because they cannot examine themselves; those who are baptized and instructed but known to live in sin are not communed because impenitent sinning drives out the Spirit and faith, and taking communion unworthily, that is, without faith, is harmful; in this way, grave spiritual harm is avoided and Christ’s mission in the world (to make disciples of all nations) and the unity of Christ’s body are fostered.

2. those who are baptized but are members of a communion that teaches differently than God’s word are not communed because their faith is obscured by the fact that they live in open violation of Christ’s call to all Christians to forsake false teachers and their teachings and embrace the full truth of God’s word in fellowship with those who believe the same; to show that they believe as God’s word teaches, they – except in rare cases of emergency (imminent death, not just a family visit) – need to sever their ties to these teachers and, after due instruction in God’s word, join a communion that teaches God’s word fully before they are communed; in this way, Christ’s mission in the world and the unity of Christ’s body are fostered.

3. those who are neither baptized nor instructed are welcome at our services of the word, but need comprehensive instruction in the faith prior to joining our community and receiving Christ’s body and blood with us; in this way, Christ’s mission in the world and the unity of Christ’s body are fostered.

Understanding the Wider Context of Today’s Struggle

Finally, why is it that the once common Christian practice of closed communion is now widely abandoned except for some pockets of resistance? The catch-all reason is, of course, sin breeding ignorance of God’s word. Looking a bit closer, we discern an individualist spirit that seeks to render all social relations invalid for defining one’s self: “It doesn’t matter to which church you belong; so long as you believe X, Y, and Z, even if your church doesn’t teach that. Diversity in faith is a good thing!” We see the same mindset at work in today’s sexuality debate: “It doesn’t matter in which body or of which sex you are; if you feel like X or want to do Y, that’s just fine.”

Another factor at work today is that the gravity of the problem of false doctrine is regularly underestimated. So long as a person holds to some basic, broad propositions – however he might understand them – we tend to consider him a Christian, at least if he doesn’t lead an immoral life. About a hundred years ago, “fundamentalism” was born as a movement that sought to shore up unity among “traditional” Christians against the evil “modernists” by requiring adherence to five “fundamental” propositions: inerrancy of bible; virgin birth of Christ; Christ’s substitutionary atonement; Christ’s bodily resurrection; authenticity of Christ’s miracles. Lutherans schooled in the Catechism wonder: That’s all fine, but what about the true divinity and humanity of Christ or the Trinity; what about baptism, absolution, and the Lord’s Supper? Are these things not “fundamental,” purchased by Christ’s blood, taught in his word? And what do all these things really mean?

In other words, fundamentalism and the movements leading up to it and flowing from it (modern Evangelicalism) is not at all informed by the Catechism; it rather suggests that we can be “united” by concentrating on a few teachings, regardless of what else we may or may not believe – and isn’t love the most important thing anyway? In this sense, much of modern liberal and conservative Protestantism is “fundamentalist.” Agreement in only a few things is enough for church and altar fellowship, and the list keeps getting shorter. In modern Evangelicalism, this list consists of: having a personal relationship to Jesus; believe that the bible is true; have a conversion experience; have the desire to share the gospel with others. Except belief in the truth of the bible, no other doctrine needs to be held, not even “the gospel” is defined anymore! Largely subjective items are listed instead. Large sections of God’s word are apparently no longer applicable or in force today, or they can be interpreted in many different ways. Books like the Small Catechism, but also creeds, which state clearly what God’s word means, are therefore often rejected as “human additions” to Scripture. This becomes most visible in the moral confusion liberal churches find themselves in; but the same must be said about many “conservative” churches which are long on morals but short, and often wrong, on doctrine.

I add another point: denial of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in bread and wine is all but universal among Protestant churches. Luther noted that those who denied this biblical truth observe a markedly looser communion discipline (“open communion”). For them, the bread and wine are just bread and wine; nothing really holy there! So it doesn’t matter much who eats and drinks and who doesn’t. Why jump through the hoops of closed communion, actually turning ill-prepared people away, and alienate interested people? Consequently, most Protestant churches practice open communion of some sort or another.

The Spirit we’ve heard in Scriptures is a different Spirit; he clashes with the predominant spirit of this world which rules many churches today. In Scripture, people are not seen as footloose individuals; individuals are part of communities, bodies of believers. In Scripture, we’re constantly taught that false doctrine matters at least as much as, if not more than, confused morals. Imagine how things would look like if we considered false doctrine as bad as, or even worse than, homosexuality, adultery, and abortion. We’d be busy keeping it out of our congregations. We’d be busy trying to warn people against joining “heterodox” churches, that is, churches that don’t teach fully what God’s word teaches. We’d be busy trying to win them back to the full truth of God’s word: Evil company corrupts good habits (1 Cor. 15:33). Communing them, “accepting them as they are,” does them a disservice! Instead, as seen above, the loving thing is to speak the law, also by closing the altar for them, which will be used by God to work a change of heart and mind in those affected by it.

Differences between fellow Lutheran church bodies are especially hard to understand from a layman’s perspective. Don’t they also believe in the Small Catechism? One should think so. The truth often looks differently, especially in the ELCA. The Catechism, if still used at all, is regularly reinterpreted to fit the needs / beliefs of a new age and place. People are prevented from knowing the truth about God’s law; about God’s creation and its implications for our being men and women (evolutionism; women’s ordination; gay marriage; gay ordination); about our sinful condition; about the Lord’s Supper; about the truth of God’s word, the bible. Instead, human commandments are taught as doctrines (Mat. 15:9). This has been going on for a long time now, at least since WW II, so that generation after generation has been affected by it. To be sure, in 1969 the American Lutheran Church, one of the predecessor bodies of the ELCA, and the LCMS declared themselves in fellowship; yet this did not prevent the ALC from starting to ordain women into the preaching office in the same year, thereby seriously undermining this fellowship. After some time, this fellowship rightly came to an end because it was not grounded in a common understanding of God’s word in all its articles.