The faithful practice of closed Communion is challenged in our day both culturally and ecclesiastically. As Western culture careens down a path of individualism and autonomy, the privatization of faith leads many to regard participation in the Sacrament as a matter of personal entitlement. But the issue of admission to the Lord's Supper is neither a matter of personal entitlement nor based on notions of being a welcoming and affirming church. Rather, it entails questions regarding both the nature of the Sacrament and of the character of the Church. The essays brought together in Closed Communion? Admission to the Lord's Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective are both old and new. Taken together, they bear testimony to a common Lutheran conviction and serve to assist both pastors and laity in understanding the biblical and confessional basis for closed Communion.
I guess I started slowly reading through this two years ago when I began my ministry. 😂
The crucial thing here is that I came looking for more theology on why communion must be closed “horizontally” as it were, and not just because of a person’s lack of belief in the Real Presence.
Unfortunately, this book really is thick with articles and chapters about communion needing to be closed for the sake of those who do not believe the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood.
For most pastors and lay people, that is self explanatory.
But I was looking for reasoning as to why “altar fellowship is church fellowship.”
To be honest, it did me more good to have read through the Bible 4 times in the 2 years I read this tome in regards to that topic.
I won’t be too harsh though, many of these articles and chapters are hard to find elsewhere, and many of the sections are excellent.
As always, CFW Walther steals the show. There’s a reason as to how he built up the Missouri Synod with such a strict communion policy 😉 True Communion is established through agreement in doctrine 👨🏻🍳 💋 👌🏻
I appreciated the articles from Werner Elert, Hermann Sasse, Jeffrey Gibbs, Martin Luther, Martin Chemnitz, etc. I don’t know how I feel about the essay by Joel Biermann. In this article, he seems to go beyond the scriptures with his interpretations and binds consciences with those interpretations, not the scriptures themselves.
Overall, I think the time invested was worth it. However, I think I’ll only be returning to a few texts as reference in the future.
This is a valuable and worthwhile collection of essays, all pertaining (to varying degrees) to the topics of Church Fellowship and Closed Communion. The essays differ rather widely from one another, which gives the book overall a somewhat uneven character. But there is much to be gained in working through the material provided here, which is not readily available elsewhere. The topic is a pressing and important one, and it is dealt with here on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. A must read, really, for any Lutheran pastor, entrusted with the stewardship of the Mysteries of God.
Well worth the price. Definitely makes you look at historical and Scriptural practices about why closed Communion is the correct practice for the care and restoration of souls. This compilation selects from great sources, and even if some of the essays cite the same content, it just goes to show they look back to what is a historic and correct practice in the Church.
Closed Communion: Admission to the Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective is a book that shows abundantly the biblical and historical roots and practice of closed communion. It offers essays and documents to make its case.