The Communion Exhortation in the Divine Service
The communion exhortation was formerly a standard part of the Lutheran Divine Service. It was intended to help instruct communicants in what they should believe regarding the Lord’s Supper and how it should be received by them. Unfortunately, changes brought about by new communication theories and the liturgical movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in its abrogation from the Divine Service of the Missouri Synod starting with The Lutheran Hymnal. I will make the argument that a communion exhortation should be restored to our Divine Service.
I was first introduced to the idea of using the communion exhortation in our present context on vicarage. My vicarage supervisor was becoming increasingly frustrated that visitors from the local ELCA congregations would visit and miss the communion cards, juke the elders at the entrance to the sanctuary, and fail to read the exceedingly clear “closed communion statement” in the bulletin. They would then approach the altar expecting to receive communion even though they had no intention of joining our fellowship. Such occasions became frequent opportunities for embarrassment and and unmet expectations on all sides. It became obvious that we needed a new tool available to us to help properly instruct visitors regarding the sacrament of the Altar. As such, the communion exhortation was quite helpful and well received by members and visitors alike.
The Purpose of the Communion Exhortation
The communion exhortation is a spoken address intended to prepare the hearers to rightly receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion as well as to warn away those who would not receive it rightly. So what does it mean to receive the Lord’s Supper rightly? We should look primarily to 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. In chapter 10:1–13 St. Paul uses the example of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness as a negative example and a warning for how Christians should conduct themselves. We should not be idolators, engage in sexual immorality, nor grumble against God. In verses 14–22 St. Paul connects this warning to the Lord’s Supper, that we should not engage in these evil things and partake of the Lord’s Table. To ignore the warning would be to “provoke the Lord to jealousy” as St. Paul warns (1 Cor 10:22). Thus we would incur similar wrath from God as Israel did in the wilderness.
St. Paul continues after a digression on head coverings in chapter 11. He warns the Corinthians “you come together not for the better but for the worse” (1 Cor 11:17). He explains the reasoning to be, “I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor 11:18). Since they come together divided they are told it is not even the Lord’s Supper they receive and they risk judgment on themselves (1 Cor 11:20, 34). Thus we see that in gathering for the Lord’s Supper one’s own personal state and relation to God is not the only thing which matters. Also we should be concerned with our relation to those around us as well. It is for this reason that we practice closed communion.
St. Paul concludes this section on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:27–34. He reiterates that we are not to receive this in an unworthy manner, which would include all that we have discussed above, but St. Paul includes on more item to be remembered. He writes, “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor 11:29). That is to say, all the communicants truly receive the Lord’s body and blood with the bread and the wine, which fact must be understood to receive rightly.
So, these are the matters which must be considered when approaching communion: am I truly in fellowship with those I come with to the table? Or is there some division between us? Am I engaged in some gross, manifest sin, or idolatry? Do I discern that I truly receive the body and blood of my Lord through the receiving of the bread and wine? A well written communion exhortation should help the hearers discern all these issues. Additionally, it is spoken aloud, clearly and distinctly, so that the pastor does not need to rely on those attending to identify and read it in the bulletin. This should help prevent awkward encounters at the communion rail which frequently result in hurt feelings and embarrassment. The communion exhortation, though, is not just for visitors, but it is also for members that week after week they might examine and prepare themselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood.
A Brief History of the Communion Exhortation
Friedrich Lochner in his work Der Hauptgottesdienst (1895), recently translated into English, preserves for us five forms of the communion exhortation.1 Yet, of these two communion exhortations stand out above the rest. The first is Martin Luther’s shorter exhortation. This one, in only a few brief sentences, details what we ought to believe as we come to the Lord’s table. It also found its way into Lutheran Worship Divine Service 3, although it was removed for Lutheran Service Book Setting 5. The other important communion exhortation is the Volprecht exhortation, a much longer exhortation that more thoroughly describes the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and the dangers to those who eat in an unworthy manner.
It was this later exhortation that became wide spread. The Volprecht exhortation was used in the St. Louis Agenda in its full form,2 while in English it was slightly abridged in the General Council’s Church Book.3 This abridged form was used by the Missouri Synod’s first official English hymnal, the Evangelical Lutheran Hymn-Book.4 Yet, with The Lutheran Hymnal a major change was made. The communion exhortation was moved from the Divine Service to the Order of the Confessional Service,5 where it has remained in all following hymnals.
Why was this change made? Generally speaking, the communion exhortation has garnered little discussion in the writings and commentaries of the liturgy, although what little there is critiques it as being an unhappy innovation and interruption in the service. Lochner, though, offers a spirited defense of the exhortation. He states that a longer exhortation should be placed before the preface so as not to disrupt the momentum of the liturgy. Then Lochner argues:
The author, who found Luther’s Exhortation in his former parish and used it that way for many years, must also admit that he did not, in doing so, sense any interruption caused by the prose. On the contrary, it was always a poignant moment for himself and others when, following the Sanctus, this Exhortation was read.6
Such a positive attitude regarding the exhortation did not remain among liturgical scholars. Luther Reed, for example, states that Martin Luther originally inserted the exhortation in his German Mass in order to replace the preface. Importantly, Reed argues that the German Mass “emphasized homiletical features” while modern Lutheran orders of service emphasize liturgical beauty. Reed further notes that the Common Service of 1888 contained both the preface and the exhortation (placed after the Sanctus), but it was removed in later editions of the Common Service Book, since the editors “believing the Exhortation to have been called by the peculiar conditions of the Reformation period, omitted it in the Service and placed it where it more properly belongs, in the Order for Public Confession.”7 Evidently, the Missouri Synod liturgists did not recognize that the exhortation was several hundred years passé until 1941.
F. R. Webber offers a different explanation of the communion exhortation. He states that it replaces the Three Mementos in the Latin Rite, which refer to the sacrament as our sacrifice and appeals to the saints. Clearly this part of the rite had to be replaced. Similar to Reed, he argues that it was intended for those who had not been properly instructed, an issue which is no longer so salient in our churches. Likewise, he argues that in the Divine Service
it seems to introduce a foreign note. The service has progressed, step by step, to the glorious hymn of praise of men and angels. Then it stops abruptly, and men stand in silence and listen to an admonition. Dr. Jacobs declares that it ‘is unliturgical, and causes a break in the Service, since this is not the place for preaching.’8
Mainly, the critique is that the homiletical element, introduced at this point is destructive to the liturgical force of the moment. Perhaps, if the Common Service used either Luther’s shorter exhortation or used the Volprecht exhortation before the preface, as Lochner suggests, one could maintain both the homiletical teaching element and the liturgical beauty. As it is, the attitude seems to be that the preaching and the liturgy are mutually destructive forces. A portion of the service might have one or the other but not both. Webber suggests that the exhortation might be maintained in the book but not spoken as that “is better than gazing idly about and becoming ‘lookers on them that do communicate.’”9 I find such an attitude curious, since pastors are called to preach and teach and be ministers of the sacrament, which are gifts from God given to the people. Certainly, the people are to be “lookers on them that do communicate” as Webber puts it—in scare quotes even—as long as the communicators speak the Word of God. It seems that the thinking goes the people should not be put into a purely passive position in the Divine Service since the liturgy is the work of the people.
This general idea that the service is primarily the work of the people encroaches even upon the sermon, namely that the pastor gives voice to the mutual conversation of the people rather than proclaiming to them the Word of God.10 In other words, the prophetic proclamation of God to and for the people is seen as mutually destructive with the participation of the people in the praise and worship of God. Even that element of the service which most clearly is an exercise of explicit instruction to a passive listener, namely the sermon, must be downplayed lest it impinge on the work of the people. Thus, the ritual and participatory aspects of the order of service is put at odds with those parts that call on the people to be passive receivers of God’s gifts. Although, this attitude that these two parts are mutually destructive goes both ways, as E. J. Friedrich, in 1934, complains that preaching has declined in the Missouri Synod, in part, on account of the increasing focus on the liturgy.11
Rather than viewing the service as being merely the work of the people, in which little to no didactic proclamation from the Lord is permitted, we should rather view the service as an interplay between God giving His gifts to us in Word and Sacrament and our sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Thus there is place both for our participation in the order of service and for the prophetic and instructional words of the Lord to be spoken to us. If we remove the prophetic instruction of the Lord from our service, the rites and rituals will inevitably descend into superstition and our people into ignorance. Ritual beauty and participation, though, strikes at the heart and forms the individual, thereby supporting the explicit teaching. Rather than being mutually destructive, these two aspects of the order of service build up and support one another. Never, therefore, should we pit liturgical care, reverence, and beauty against preaching and teaching.
The Communion Exhortation For Today
When it comes to using the communion exhortation in our American context, we must keep in mind that there are two audiences. The first are our regular members who come to the Lord’s Supper frequently. These people will hear the communion exhortation week after week and it should encourage them to examine themselves, to repent of their sins, to receive the Lord’s Supper with reverence, and to avoid the Supper if it would be given to their harm. To this task, the historic communion exhortations of Luther and Volprecht do excellently. Although, it is worth noting that the Volprecht exhortation is quite long with respect to our modern expectations of the length of the Divine Service.
The problem comes in when we consider the second audience to which this exhortation is to be delivered. That is, as mentioned above, visitors from outside the church or from church bodies with whom we are not in fellowship. For their spiritual benefit and on account of the serious warnings we read in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, the Lord’s Supper must be withheld from them. Yet, it should also be spoken in such a way that they would not be needlessly offended, as Paul writes, “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Ro 12:18). Some will be offended regardless, yet pastors should not be dissuaded from their God-given task as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1). This is where the historic communion exhortations fall short. They do not adequately warn those who are in fellowship with heterodox communions away from the table. A member of a Presbyterian Church or the ELCA could hear these exhortations and easily think that they are invited to the table because they are repentant of their sin and believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the sacrament. Luther and Volprecht could not have imagined the ecclesiastic chaos that is modern America with so many church bodies mixed up together in every village, town, and city. For this reason, any communion exhortation we introduce must make clear our standard of fellowship that all visitors may be properly instructed and not find an unpleasant surprise if they are halted at the altar. Such an exhortation would hopefully encourage visitors to study deeper into Scripture’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper and to hold it with even greater reverence.
To this end, I propose the following two communion exhortations. I do not believe either of them to be the end all be all of exhortations and there are certainly places where there may be improved, but it is a start to the conversation. I hope that someday soon someone will write an exhortation which speaks with clarity and beauty such that it may be used for as long time as Volprecht’s exhortation.
Example 1
Following the Offertory (DS 1 and 2), Prayer of the Church (DS 3), or Offering (DS 4 and 5)
Dear friends in Christ,
Since we are gathered here in the name of the Lord to receive His holy Sacrament, I exhort you in Christ to take to heart the words in which Christ gives us His true body and blood with the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins and so that you may remember His boundless love for us, when, by His blood He delivered us from the wrath of God, from sin, death, and hell.
Yet recall what St. Paul warns us "whoever 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" (1 Co 11:27 ESV). For this reason, we ask that all who have not been instructed in the Christian faith according to the confession of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, those from other faith traditions, and those who are living in unrepentant sins with no intention of renouncing them to refrain from the Lord's Supper.
Those who are not receiving the Lord's Supper this day are asked to cross your arms over your chest as you approach the altar to receive a blessing, or you may choose to remain in your pew during the distribution. All this we do according to our Lord's gracious word and command.
We continue with the Service of the Sacrament on page [160; 177; 194; 208; 216].
Preface Dialogue
Example 2
Following the Offertory (DS 1 and 2), Prayer of the Church (DS 3), or Offering (DS 4 and 5)
Dearly beloved, we are gathered in the name and remembrance of Jesus to receive His true body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine according to His testament and promise. Holy Scripture places great blessings on the reception of this sacrament, so members of this congregation and sister congregations of our Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod are welcome to commune with us at this time.
However, Holy Scripture also places great warnings upon the reception of this sacrament upon the unprepared, the unexamined, and those of differing confessions of faith. For these reasons, we ask all visitors, those who are still undergoing instruction, those from other Christian denominations, and any others to refrain from communing at this time. We do, however, invite you forward to receive a blessing at the altar. If you wish to receive a blessing, please cross your arms over your chest at the railing. We continue with the service of the sacrament on page [160; 177; 194; 208; 216]
Preface Dialogue
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture is taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Friedrich Lochner, The Chief Divine Service, trans. Matthew Carver (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2020), 236–246.
Kirchen-Agende für evangelisch-lutherischen Gemeinden ungeänderter Augsburgisher Confession (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1856), 233–234.
Church Book for the Use of Evangelical Lutheran Congregations, authorized by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (Philadelphia: Lutheran Book Store, 1875), 18–19.
Evangelical Lutheran Hymn-Book, authorized by the English Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri and other States, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1909), 10–11.
The Lutheran Hymnal, authorized by the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941), 47.
Lochner, The Chief Divine Service, 238.
Luther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy: A Study of the Common Service of the Lutheran Church in America (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1947), 311.
F. R. Webber, Studies in the Liturgy (Erie: Ashby Printing Company, 1938), 127–129.
Webber, Studies in the Liturgy, 129.
Cf. J. M. Reu, Homiletics, trans. Albert Steinhaeuser, (Chicago: Wartburg Publishing House, 1927), 2–3. Richard R. Caemmerer, Preaching for the Church (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 56–57, “Very easily the sermon can deteriorate simply to a message from the preacher to the people, in effect an episode set apart from the portions of the service in which people worship together.”
Friedrich, E. J. “Reflections on the Status of Our Preaching.” Concordia Theological Monthly 5, no. 2 (1934): 114–124.