VOL. 53, No.4

THE FORUM NOTEBOOK 2

FROM THE EDITORWhat Can Evangelical Catholic Lutherans Offer toToday's Wandering Souls?R. David Nelson 4

FROM THE AsSOCIATE EDITORA WordMatthew o. Staneck 9

HYMNI've Found the Fairest of RosesGracia Grindal 13

STUDIES IN LUTHERThe Cost of Supporting Luther: The Role of Johannvon Staupitz in the Early ReformationJudith Rossall 16

DOCTRINEForde, the EssentialNicholas Hopman and John D. KochJr.

DISSENTING DISPL'\.CEDHave Christians and Jews Believed "This" for a Very,Very Long Time?Dennis R. Di Mauro 38

FORUMWINTER 2019

PUBLIC WITNESSBlessed Are the Peacemakers: A CongregationalApproach to Gun ViolenceTomDecker 43

DISSENTING IN PU\CEDesiring the Table: Revising the Doctrine of ClosedCommunionMark Brown 48

BOOK REVIEWLuther's Small Catechism:An Exposition of the ChristianFaith in Asian Contextsand Cultures, edited by J. PaulRajashekarSarah Hinlicky Wilson, reviewer 53

A"lD Now FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENTNot All Growth Is GoodJason Byassee 56

23

FROM THE ARCHIVESThe Role of Lutheran ForumLeonard R. Klein 64

.Please send editorial correspondence and rnanuscript submissions to:submissions.lutheranforum@gmail.com.

All Bible quotations from the ESV unless otherwise noted.

Subscribe to the Forum Package at www.afpb.org 4 issues Lutheran Forum and 12issues Forum Letter. 1 yr. $30.00, 2 yrs. $55.00.

Or visit www.futheranforum.com/subscribel.

Lutheran Forum (ISSN 0024-7456) is published quarterly by the AmericanLutheran Publicity Bureau, 6059 Elk Creek Road, Delhi, NY 13753. Periodicalspostage paid at Delhi, NY, and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send addresschanges to Lutheran Forum, P.O. Box 327, Delhi, NY 13753-0327. Tel. (607)746-7511. Indexed with abstracts in Religion Index One: Periodicals, AmericanTheological Library Association, Chicago, and Religious and Theological Abstracts,Myerstown, PA. Member of Associated Church Press. Printed in the U.s.A.

Continuing The American Lutheran, 1918-1966, published by the AmericanLutheran Publicity Bureau.

© 2019 b the American Lutheran Publicit Bureau.

EditorR. David Nelson

Associate EditorsPiotr j. Malysz

Matthew 0. Staneck

Production EditorDavid C. Drebes

Poetry and Hymn Editor" Gracia Grindal

Copy EditorRebecca j. Frey

My point is not to deny closedcommunion. That is and has beenthe standard practice of the church.My point, beyond a blatant attemptat self-justification and clearingof my conscience, is to think what

closed communion means.

Let me describe a situation. It happens to havebeen my situation, with some additional char-

acters should someone consider doxing me, but Ithink it might resonate far beyond the parochial. Itstarts when you are parachuted into a congregationthat has twenty worshipers on an average weekend.My particular version included splitting those twen-ty people across Saturday and Sunday, but that wasjust a wrinkle. Also, the particular number isn't real-ly the issue: twenty people meeting in a house week-ly would be a big number; a number that might notbe able to afford a pastor with an M.Div.degree, butstill a full number. Yourscould be a congrega-tion that has a hundredworshipers on any givenweekend, but when thebuilding seats 650, andthe front twenty pewsare empty (because weknow that Lutheransalways sit at the back),that hundred feelsjust asempty. Likewise, circuitriding between multiplelocations, let us say threepoints with thirty soulseach, would be similar. Now, let us talk demograph-ics. At the beginning of that situation, you are anold 37; by any reality you are approaching the endof childbearing years, firmly in middle age. Yet youvery likely are the only person in the congregationthat could even think of having a child. The pres-ence of your familymight take the average age downby over a decade.

Next, let us add the financial reality. There is nev-er more than the next payroll in the bank accounts.Fifty percent of the congregation's budget comesfrom two folks, one of them already well past the

48 WINTER 2019

DISSENTING IN PLACE

DESIRING THE TABLE:

REVISING THE DOCTRINE OF

CLOSED COMMUNION

Mark Brown

biblical eighty years if they have the strength. Andyou, tithing pastor, are number three. The difficultpart of this situation really isn't the 80/20 rule ofchurch financing, in which 80 percent of the moneycomes from 20 percent of the folks. That ratio willexist anywhere; the difficulty of the demographics isone common to all groups in the United States. Allthe money is owned by the over-65 crowd. So thereare two things that happen here. First, to financeanything requires convincing your grandfather topay for it; your father if you are fortunate. Second,at any time this source of funding could decide that

Arizona looks good andmove there.

The last bit of the sit-uation is the theologicalreality. It is the boomerswho control your financ-es and are the prima-ry folks present. Theyare poorly catechized;addicted to anythingthat creates warm fuzzyfeelings, which usuallyincludes ecumenical ac-tivity; have likely neverbeen discipled, at least

not in what evangelicals would call basic Christian pi-ety of prayer and Bible reading-but they are keenlyattuned to anything they may call fundamentalism,which isjust anything that might draw a distinctionor harsh a buzz.

Parachuted into any situation such as this, whichI think to be honest, is probably over 35 percent ofcongregations in the Missouri Synod, what do youdo? Of course the first thing .you\io is deny com-munion to the first visitor that stumbles in the door,in accordance with LCMS practice, right? You cou-rageously take your stand beside Gideon, saying,

"Lord, it is still too many, cutit down more." When the per-son-who-represents-35 percent-of-the-budget's .. daughter, whowas confirmed but attends onlywhen in town on Christmas Eve tohumor Dad approaches the rail,you politely give her a blessing,correct? Or when the nice Pres-

I believe that asimple and practicaldefinition of closedcommunion would'

include: 'a) those whoare baptized; b) those

who confess theirsinful state; c) thosewho join in the creedand hear the wordsof institution and soknow what is offered

(}t the level of a child'sunderstanding; andd) those who desire to

come.byterian lady whom one of therecently widowed 80-year-oldsdecided to marry on a whim splitstime between her church and hernew groom's, you grill her abouther beliefs-and when she sayswhat typical mainline Protestantswould say, you ask her to abstainfrom the raiL

And of course if you do anyof these things, you are an idiot.You may be a theologically cor-rect idiot, but you are probably an

unemployed idiot sitting on can-didate-for-the-reverend-ministry(CRM) status working at the localused car lot for the rest of yourlife. Not that the seminary wouldcare; they parachuted you intothat situation, because hey, theyhave your tuition money. Not thatthe district would care. They careonly to the extent that you canprevent people from complain-ing to them. If you cause peopleto complain, even if you mightbe theologically correct, they'drather you were working at theused car lot. Now your consciencemight bother you, at least if youhave absorbed the theologicallycorrect line. But when you havequit your job, spent four years inseminary, and your long-sufferingwife with three kids is looking forgrocery money, well, it is amazinghow soft the voice of consciencecan get.

Exegetical and liturgical grounding

Enough of my whining; by graceI survived my version of that sce-nario, so let me turn to the pointof this meditation. My point is notto deny closed communion. Thatis and has been the standard prac-tice of the church. My point, be-yond a blatant attempt at self-jus-tification and clearing of myconscience, is to think what closedcommunion means. I don't wantto think about it in an era that al-ready has more than one foot.inthe grave-the era of strong de-nominational identity. My point isto think about it in the living eraof post-denominational reality. Idon't want to think about it in anera of membership that is dyingwith the last of the World War IIgeneration, but I want to thinkabout it in what must be an eraof discipleship, of nurturing babyChristians. And most of all I wantto think about closed communionwithin the sense of being a cath-

olic, not a Roman Catholic, butsimply a member of the universalchurch.

The entire reason that closedcommunion is even an issue isbecause of I Corinthians 11. Paulwrites that "Whoever eats thebread or drinks the cup of theLord in an unworthy manner willbe guilty concerning the bodyand blood of the Lord." Anoth-er way of saying that, I believe,would be simply, "If you par-take unworthily, you crucify Godagain." Now in admitting we aresinners, we already acknowledge

The historic LCMS

understanding readsLuther's words as

plural and introducesthe concept of thecollective. This is

where our fear of thetable comes from. If

we admit someone whodoes not fully share

our confession, if theydo not have the puregospel, then perhapsthey have defiled theentire sacrament.

that we have caused the crucifix-ion, but what unworthy participa-tion is akin to is joining the Jewsin saying "His blood be upon usand our children." So the ques-tion then becomes, what is eatingand drinking unworthily? Lu-ther answers this question in the

LUTHERAN FORUM 49

Small Catechism, but Paul firstanswered it in I Corinthians II.He begins by saying, "Let a per-son examine himself." Paul alsouses this phrase in II .Corinthi-ans 13:5; the point is simply oneof faith. "Examine yourselves tosee whether you are in the faith."And what is that faith? ''Anyonewho eats and drinks without dis-cerning the body eats and drinksjudgment upon themselves." Theone who eats and drinks worthi-ly is the one who believes that thesacrament is Christ given for us.This is exactly what Luther sq.ysin the Catechism: "That personis truly worthy and well preparedwho has faith in these words:'Given and shed for you for theforgiveness of sins.'" Yes, there isa second phrase, which I will dis-cuss shortly, but for now the onewho receives worthily is the onewith faith. And we should recog-nize that the Apostle says that it isfor the person to examine them-selves. Luther also in the LargeCatechism holds that "This is theentire Christian preparation forreceiving worthily. Since this trea-sure is entirely presented in thesewords, it cannot be received andmade ours in any other ways thanwith the heart. .. .This is done byfaith in the heart, which discernsthis treasure and desires it." Pre-senting oneself at the rail is pre-senting belief and desire.

But if that were the whole story,I've just turned closed commu-nion into open communion. Whatelse should be a fence to the tablebeyond the individual's determi-nation? I want to turn briefly tothe practices of two other commu-nions. First, the Eastern Ortho-dox, who practice infant commu-nion immediately upon baptism.This practice holds well with astandard Lutheran response toBaptists concerning communion:"Babies can have faith." Faith isnot an intellectual endeavor but

50 WINTER 2019

is itself the gift of God. And thatgift comes in the indwelling of theSpirit in baptism. The Eastern Or-thodox practice of postbaptismalinfant communion gives us one ofthe justifiable external barriers tothe table. Are you baptized? Hasthe gift of the Spirit been given toyou through water and the word?Although babies can have faith,this practice would seem to callinto question Paul's admonitionto examine ourselves. The Ro-man Catholic communion opens

I think we all feel theconflict between the

denominational era weinherited that wouldlike us to maintain amuch higher fence,

and the parochial post-denominational reality.

And this tensionfinds its way into

your parish existence,because there is usuallyat least one person whoeither out of nostalgia

or out of superiorknowledge pines forthat higher fence.

the table to children around sev-en years of age. The requirementsare a basic understanding of thefaith and sacrament such that aseven-year-old can grasp, whichamounts to three items: What you

would hear at Mass; recognitionof our sinful state; and confes-sion. This list is not far from the"Christian Questions with TheirAnswers" in Luther's Catechism.These are also all exemplified inthe Lutheran liturgy: in the cor-porate confession and absolutionor simply in the Kyrie, in thecreed, and in the words of institu-tion. Participation in the liturgy isfitting preparation.

I thus believe that a simple andpractical definition of closed com-munion would include: a) thosewho are baptized; b) those whoconfess their sinful state; c) thosewho join in the creed and hearthe words of institution and soknow what is offered at the levelof a child's understanding; andd) those who desire to come. Weneed to take to heart Luther'swords in the Large Catechism re-garding this treasure from heaventhat Christ has brought us: "Wemust never think of the Sacra-ment as something harmful fromwhich we had better flee, but asa pure, wholesome, comfortingremedy that grants .salvation andcomfort. ... Why, then, do we actas if the Sacrament were a poison,the eating of which would bringdeath?" Luther continues to say,"To be sure, it is true that thosewho despise the Sacrament andlive in an unchristian way receiveit to their hurt and damnation, butnothing shall be good or whole-some for them." That sounds tome like Luther's acknowledgmentthat of course there are those whowill come unworthily. But it isworse to be overly scrupulous-totreat the sacrament like poison-than to accept the fact that somewho present themselves might beunworthy.

Historical setting

Now let me turn to that secondphrase of the Small Catechism

that I elided before and a histori -cal argument. That second phraseis "But anyone who does not be-lieve these words or doubts themis unworthy and unprepared, forthe words 'for you' require allhearts to believe." This phrasingisa little troublesome in English,which other than the colloquialy'all does not have a distinctive sec-ond person plural pronoun. Thehistoric LCMS understanding readsLuther's words as plural and in-troduces the concept of the col-lective. This is where our fear ofthe table comes from. If we admitsomeone who does not fully shareour confession, if they do not havethe pure gospel, then perhapsthey have defiled the entire sacra-ment. Hence the very catholic lowfence I have suggested-baptism,childlike understanding, desire-has often been replaced with avery high fence: agreement in allarticles; declaration and pastoralexamination; and all of this rep-resented by membership eitherlocal or synodical.

I suggest that the high fence issomething of a historical accident,perhaps appropriate to a previoustime and place, but wronghead-ed in our time and place. Let meoutline three historical phases:The first I will call the Westpha-lian era. The Peace of Augsburgintroduced the concept of theruler's religion as the faith of theterritory (cuius regio, eius religio),but there were only two options:Roman Catholic and Lutheran.The Treaty of Westphalia includ-ed the Reformed option. Whenthe Continental development wascombined with the English Ref-ormation, what resulted was apatchwork of civic state religions.This outcome led to a period ofreligious confessionalization andthe construction of nation-states.There may have been a highfence for the table, but it was nev-er a fence that was tested. Italians

who found themselves in Swedenwould not present themselves atthe altar rail. And the commonfolk following the Thirty Years'War were fine with the religion onoffer in their region rather thana return to open conflict. This

A catholic practiceof closed communionrecognizes the bodyof Christ. That bodyof Christ is presentboth on the altar

but also in the onewho approaches thealtar and is drawnto that altar. Thatbody of Christ is:

baptized, cognizantof sin, repentant,and desiring the

grace offered in thesacrament.

Westphalian world allowed forhigh fences that simply were nev-er tested.

The second period we can callthe denominational era. That titleis a little anachronistic, becausedenominations are really a nine-teenth-century American devel-opment, and this era stretchesback a bit before 1776. But whatwe are talkirig about is the eraof formerly state churches beingtransported to the liberal para-dise of the United States. Initially,

ethnic identity continued to shapeone's religious identity. If ,youwere English, you were an Angli-can or Congregationalist if of truePlymouth stock. If German, youwere usually either Catholic orLutheran, or possibly Old OrderAmish. If a Scot or a Dutchman,Presbyterian. But these ethnicidentities began to break down asthe melting pot did its business.The state church connections tothe old countries broke down.And what took its place was de-nominations and the emphasis onchurch membership. It is a weakheuristic, but you can take a lookat the Google n-gram for churchmembership. In the early 1800s,the term is nonexistent in the lit-erature. It takes a step up through1910, as the denominations areformed and the last of the nine-teenth-century immigrants are as-similated. It takes a massive stepupward from 1920 through 1980,the salad years of the denomi-nations. And then you can see itstarting to decline. Church mem-bership attempted to carryall theweight of the centuries of ethnicconfessionalization, and it broke.The table fence during this erawould be tested by intermarriageand frequent geographic move-ment. Those high fences would bemaintained through the testing;but eventually denominationalidentity would break under bothecumenical activity and the sociol-ogy of the United States. The highfence was tested and breached.

That leads us to the third era,which started roughly in the1970s and continues. I've calledit the post-denominational reali-ty. This survey could at this timerun through all the acronyms ofall the denominations and talkabout who has altar fellowshipwith whom; who even cares; andalso the wild and woolly post-de-nominational space, but part ofthe purpose of this discussion is to

LUTHERAN FORUM 5 I

admit that such things are at bestnonsensical. The denomination-al fences have all been broken,even Rome's. Ask yourself whenwas the last funeral Mass (or reg-ular Mass) that you attended inwhich you would not have beengiven the host. The only one. inwhich I would not have been ableto commune was a funeral Masssaid for a man who attended whatwas normally a Latin Mass out-post. That priest, knowing therewere Lutherans present, includ-ing the widow, specifically askedthat all non-Catholics abstain. Buteven this man gave the host tothe widow. And she took it. Thepriest told the others to abstain.Her Lutheran pastor was thereand followed that admonition.And I don't know what the priestthought, but we were the priestand the Levite that day. And theSamaritan widow taught us some-thing. The post-denominationalreality is that all the extra fenc-es that we have humanly erectedhave come down. What remains

52 WINTER 2019

are those from a simpler, morecatholic time.

Conclusion

In sum, I think we all feel the con-flict between the denominationalera we inherited that would likeus to maintain a much higherfence, and the parochial post-de-nominational reality.And this ten-sion finds its way into your parishexistence, because there is usual-ly at least one person who eitherout of nostalgia or out of superiorknowledge pines for that higherfence. And they have the back-ing of the denomination, whichinvokes "closed communion" likea mantra while never actuallyshowing what it looks like. Thebest construction I can put on itis that they might still be living inplaces where the denominationalage lingers. And if you don't agreewith them, you are advocatingopen communion.

The purpose of this short re-flection is to refute definition and

to assert a practice of closed com-munion that finds solid supportin the Catechisms; is attentive tothe Apostle Paul; and is contex-tually attuned. A catholic practiceof closed communion recognizesthe body of Christ. That body ofChrist is present both on the altarbut also in the one who approach-es the altar and is drawn to thataltar. That body of Christ is: bap-tized, cognizant of sin, repentant,and desiring the grace offered inthe sacrament. The right presiderat the sacrament does not spendtime worrying about dispensingpoison but instead is pouring oiland wine on human wounds-spiritual wounds that in our agehave left many half dead on theroad. We should not pass by onthe other side of the rail. Ip-

MARKBROWN is the pastor of St.Mark's Lutheran Church in WestHenrietta, New York.

v

IJ