Closed Communion and Racism
Some churches use the crossed arms as a non-verbal indication of not being eligible to commune at a particular altar
There is an interview with an LCMS pastor that is illustrative of how modern mainstream Wokism - with its assumption of “systemic racism” - is incompatible with Christianity. This is especially the case for Christians who confess the Book of Concord, specifically, Luther’s Small Catechism.
This pastor - whom I’m not naming, as my issue is not with him personally, but rather with his ideas - is a highly educated and visible cleric in the LCMS. He holds a doctorate degree, and is one of the featured Bible study teachers at the National Youth Gathering. I’m calling him “Rev. Dr. Joe Smith.”
In a public YouTube clip, he makes the claim that he has been denied the Lord’s Supper in Lutheran - presumably LCMS - churches, being prohibited from the Eucharist by Lutheran pastors, because he is black, and that this scenario has played out twenty times. He claims to know that this was done because of “racism” on the part of the celebrant in each of these incidents.
His take on closed communion is interesting, as he posits that this is not the norm in LCMS churches - and he may well be right about that in practice:
“The idea of being denied at the communion rail, which is a common practice in many Lutheran churches: to deny people if they’re not Lutheran, right? That’s what some churches will do.”
Closed communion is the universal practice of historic Christian churches. Since the year 1054, the Eastern and Western churches have not been in altar and pulpit fellowship with one another. Since 1530, we who confess the Augsburg Confession have been outside of communion fellowship with the Roman Church. And the LCMS itself came into being because of closed communion: resistance to being forced by the government to commune with the Reformed.
And I’m not going to get into a semantic game about “close(d) communion” - which strikes me as bureaucratic ecclesiastical Orwellian-style Newspeak. For the purpose of this article, “closed communion” means "not open communion.” And indeed, we in the LCMS are in altar and pulpit fellowship with dozens of church bodies (some of which are almost exclusively comprised of black Lutherans). This “altar and pulpit fellowship” means that members of our churches are welcome to commune at their altars, and they at ours. Our pastors can mutually preach as guests in one another’s pulpits, celebrate at one another’s altars, and can even receive calls to one another’s churches. These ecclesial relationships are forged by carefully examining our doctrine - again, out of concern for a pure confession - which is ultimately for the sake of the soul in the pew and at the rail.
Closed communion is the norm for the Holy Church in its catholicity, including our Missouri Synod jurisdiction in particular.
By contrast, Pastor Smith implies that closed communion is just something that “some” of our churches do, and gives the impression that it’s all just an option, and perhaps even that the norm and the default in our churches is to commune non-Lutherans. In reality, closed communion is not just the “policy” of the LCMS, but is our confession of faith based on the Holy Scriptures. In 1 Cor 11, St. Paul argues that improperly administering the Sacrament to people based upon their improper confession can harm or even kill the one receiving the Sacrament:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”
Thus, the celebrants of the Divine Service act as “stewards of the mysteries” (the sacraments) - as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 4:1. The officiant is like a medical doctor treating a patient. The “medicine of immortality” (as St. Ignatius of Antioch called the Holy Eucharist in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 20) is like a prescription. A good doctor doesn’t just hand out a medicine willy-nilly, not knowing whether if it will cure, or kill, the patient. When I was very young, I was told that I was allergic to penicillin. I don’t know if that’s really true or not, but I have always told my doctors that this is what I was told. Therefore, medical doctors - who all practice “closed prescriptions” - will deny me penicillin, not because of ethnic prejudice or malice, but specifically out of care for me as a patient. The practice of “closed prescriptions” is responsible and loving medical care.
And so when a stranger comes to the communion rail, responsible and loving pastors need to know whether or not the person is “allergic.” This is why it is important for visitors to speak to the pastor ahead of time. A group of us LCMS Lutherans participate in two annual motorcycle trips. Of course, on Sunday, we seek out a faithful liturgical LCMS congregation to visit. And we always call and speak to the pastor well ahead of time to let him know that we are visiting, and to request - not to demand - to receive Holy Communion from his hand under his pastoral oversight.
This is to avoid making things awkward for the pastor by surprising him at the rail - which is problematic, and interrupts the distribution of the Sacrament. To just show up at the communion rail unannounced is rude, and puts the pastor in a bind. And nobody should understand this better than a fellow pastor - and a highly educated one at that. More is expected of a doctor of the church, as St. James says: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (Jas 3:1). And if one cannot phone ahead, why not show up five minutes early and ask to speak to the pastor? And if one cannot do that, how about asking an elder to speak to the pastor on your behalf?
Even at the rail itself, as the celebrant is going by with the body of Christ, the Rev Dr. Smith could get his attention and ask, “I’m a brother LCMS pastor, would you give me the Sacrament, dear brother?”
If being denied communion happened to Dr. Smith some twenty times, why would he not do something different than just showing up unannounced, again, and again, and again, and again? Dr. Smith avers:
“For my POC brothers and sisters, the amount of times that we’ve been denied has been greater than any other white person or white clergyperson that I’ve ever talked to. ”
A POC is a non-white person (i.e. “Person of Color”). A scholar ought to know better than to make such a broad assumption regarding what is a matter of verifiable data. Has there been a study on this topic of the frequency of denials of communion taking race into account? Is Dr. Smith’s implication objectively true?
“I’ve been denied at the communion rail, visiting Lutheran churches, over 20 times. ”
The interviewer then asked, “Is that because they assumed that because you’re black, you must not be Lutheran, therefore you don’t believe the same things as us, therefore we can’t commune you?” Dr. Smith replied, “Yes, yes…. It is racism, because you’re coming from a specific [unintelligible] of what you believe, your presupposition.”
In my own practice (which I offer here only as a possibly helpful suggestion and bit of perspective), if an unknown visitor presents himself spontaneously for communion, I will quickly ask if he is a member of “one of our sister churches.” Admittedly, this is not ideal, as this presumes that the person knows what this means. But I am just not going to interrupt the Mass to conduct a detailed inquiry. If the visitor says, “no,” or seems confused, I smile, tell him that I’m glad that he’s here, and ask if I can give him a blessing. After the service, we can talk about it more if the person desires. Most of the people to whom I have denied communion have been white. I have indeed refused to commune a black visitor. But what happened next was that I catechized him, and in a few weeks, received him as a communicant member. Indeed, it is more common for me to commune black members while excluding white visitors than the other way around.
Without evidence to the contrary, it is irresponsible and inflammatory to presume a sinful motive for not communing a visitor whose status is unknown. It implicates all of us, as these specific allegedly racist pastors are not identified. It could be any of us. I know a lot of pastors in our ministerium. I cannot think of a single pastor who does not take delight in placing the body of Christ on the tongues of sinners of every color and ethnicity. One who says otherwise bears the burden of proof.
Even a catechumen who has memorized the Small Catechism’s explanation of the Eighth Commandment ought to know better than to impute wicked motives upon others based only on subjective feelings and presuppositions. This is the poison of Wokism and the Doctrine of Systemic Racism. In Christianity, righteousness is imputed to the sinner for Christ’s sake, and Justification is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls. In Wokism, unrighteousness is imputed to the Christian for Identity’s sake, and Systemic Racism is the doctrine by which the Ideology stands or falls.
One cannot serve two masters.
As a postscript, here are two excellent books that give the actual explanation of closed communion.
Closed Communion? Admission to the Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective by the Revs. Matthew Harrison and John Pless
Come In, We Are Closed by the Rev. Tyrel Bramwell