Closed communion is the confession of the LCMS, already binding on every congregation and pastor through the Synod’s constitution, but Convention delegates want to find exceptions.
It’s a shame we have the majority of the floor that agrees with confessional doctrine, but some of them are just don’t have the balls or are too brainwashed by the “niceness” bug to just enforce the practice that our doctrine demands.
I met with a local LCMS pastor recently. I left his office horrified by much of what he said. He rewrites the liturgy, including the confession and absolution because they are boring and people's minds wander; we talk to much about repentance in the church - you'll never repent your way to heaven, so let it go; baptism has it's place, but we shouldn't prioritize it; he gets around the open communion debate by teaching 'inclusive Communion' - the only people excluded are those who exclude themselves (I've personally seen him commune Catholics and Methodists, knowing this was there confession). And, he is just the CEO of the church;since he has devoted himself to running it like a business, membership has exploded.
What are all of these resolutions at convention for, if we are not actually protecting the sheep from the wolves?
The underlying theme with so many of these issues is that 1) the church is slow to act or take a stand, or weasel-words an “out” into everything, leaving a subjective margin for interpretation 2) in this vacuum the people or congregations do whatever pleases them absent authoritative guidance 3) several decades allow the behavior to be normalized 4) by the time history shows us we’ve erred we are already so “pregnant” with malpractice that to truly address it would result it more division than if it was handled decisively in the first place.
In my own local church closed communion and close communion are not treated by some leadership as the same. I have had to advise a Baptist brother who comes to our dinners and suppers, that regarding service he must not take communion. I know he only sees it as remembrance. As a relatively new Lutheran I take seriously 😒 this issue.
Sad that Resolution 5-05 [re: Open Communion & reaffirming Close[d] Communion] wasn't passed by 100%, that 13% voted against, that once again the Synod is asked to redefine terms of our Sacrament as close[d], and that the very leaders who are to assure we keep doctrinal purity and practice of Holy Communion in our churches are the ones who have closed their eyes to Confessional aberrations. Though my post here is with a respectful attitude, to some, my previous phrase about 'leaders' may have over-stepped one 'be it resolved' in the resolution [i.e. about being 'kind' in discussing the issue of loose communion practice]. I am being kind. That 13% voted against the resolution, it'd be good if they were all Lay People, who can be taught of the 100% of our clergy who know, believe, and practice what is right concerning the Sacrament. But, this is likely not the case; at least two circuits of the NW Dist are fraught with congregations' public statements in bulletins and online, 'communicating' [or are easily interpreted] that they are open to or do practice loose or Open Communion. Hope the Resolution 'kindly' moves leaders and pastors hearts now, and that a forthcoming CTCR 'redo' of our synodical stance, might add 'teeth' to keep leaders accountable to address blatant breaks from our Confessions when reported. Kyrie Eleison.
It’s a shame we have the majority of the floor that agrees with confessional doctrine, but some of them are just don’t have the balls or are too brainwashed by the “niceness” bug to just enforce the practice that our doctrine demands.
I met with a local LCMS pastor recently. I left his office horrified by much of what he said. He rewrites the liturgy, including the confession and absolution because they are boring and people's minds wander; we talk to much about repentance in the church - you'll never repent your way to heaven, so let it go; baptism has it's place, but we shouldn't prioritize it; he gets around the open communion debate by teaching 'inclusive Communion' - the only people excluded are those who exclude themselves (I've personally seen him commune Catholics and Methodists, knowing this was there confession). And, he is just the CEO of the church;since he has devoted himself to running it like a business, membership has exploded.
What are all of these resolutions at convention for, if we are not actually protecting the sheep from the wolves?
The underlying theme with so many of these issues is that 1) the church is slow to act or take a stand, or weasel-words an “out” into everything, leaving a subjective margin for interpretation 2) in this vacuum the people or congregations do whatever pleases them absent authoritative guidance 3) several decades allow the behavior to be normalized 4) by the time history shows us we’ve erred we are already so “pregnant” with malpractice that to truly address it would result it more division than if it was handled decisively in the first place.
Most certainly true. Have too often seen the very ugly fruit of this kind of thinking.
When matters require clear guidance and we instead defer the dialogue in the name of comfort, we might as well be saying “what is truth?”
Every time I read one of these articles, I am more grateful for my pastor.
In my own local church closed communion and close communion are not treated by some leadership as the same. I have had to advise a Baptist brother who comes to our dinners and suppers, that regarding service he must not take communion. I know he only sees it as remembrance. As a relatively new Lutheran I take seriously 😒 this issue.
Sad that Resolution 5-05 [re: Open Communion & reaffirming Close[d] Communion] wasn't passed by 100%, that 13% voted against, that once again the Synod is asked to redefine terms of our Sacrament as close[d], and that the very leaders who are to assure we keep doctrinal purity and practice of Holy Communion in our churches are the ones who have closed their eyes to Confessional aberrations. Though my post here is with a respectful attitude, to some, my previous phrase about 'leaders' may have over-stepped one 'be it resolved' in the resolution [i.e. about being 'kind' in discussing the issue of loose communion practice]. I am being kind. That 13% voted against the resolution, it'd be good if they were all Lay People, who can be taught of the 100% of our clergy who know, believe, and practice what is right concerning the Sacrament. But, this is likely not the case; at least two circuits of the NW Dist are fraught with congregations' public statements in bulletins and online, 'communicating' [or are easily interpreted] that they are open to or do practice loose or Open Communion. Hope the Resolution 'kindly' moves leaders and pastors hearts now, and that a forthcoming CTCR 'redo' of our synodical stance, might add 'teeth' to keep leaders accountable to address blatant breaks from our Confessions when reported. Kyrie Eleison.