1. I would think that if a pastor were to practice close communion it just might increase pastoral conversation with newcomers which just might result in catechesis. Yes, this is work, but it is the pastor’s proper vocational good work: to teach the Word of God as correctly confessed in the Lutheran Confessions. A statement in the bulletin is just too easy (but in the ELCA, such a statement is almost a signal of confessional orthodoxy these days). And with a congregation properly understanding close communion it would signal to a newcomer: The Sacrament of the Altar really matters to these people. It’s not just a ‘happy meal’. I know close communion could be to simply exclude but I think it’s actual purpose is fidelity to Scripture and the possibility of teaching Christ Jesus which would result in three responses for newcomers: 1. Further deepening of Faith already there; 2. Coming to Faith in Christ Jesus; 3. One would just walk away shaking one’s head (cf. St. John 6: 66-68).
2. Holy Communion has not only the vertical dimension but a horizontal dimension and when you put those two lines together Holy Communion is cruciform (cf. 1 Corinthians 11: 26). In the responses above it is only the vertical dimension that is addressed: “me and Jesus”. But Holy Communion is 3D. We confess the horizontal dimension of the faith delivered to the saints once and for all (Jude 1: 3). If we are not discerning the Body of Christ, and going about with our own practices as the Corinthians were doing, then we are inviting death. (1 Corinthians 11: 30). Pick and choose Christianity and we are not living the Holy Communion of the unity of faith and doctrine. It seems to be the Corinthian church knew pick and choose Christianity. And per the Prof. Levenson quote above: if I receive Holy Communion in another church body then I am tacitly assenting to their doctrines, for instance, in the Roman communion: papal infallibility, Mary’s bodily assumption, etc. It’s a witness: a false one. And yes, even between two major American Lutheran church bodies, that both bear the name Lutheran: we’ve been going down two separate paths for sometime now. We are not in doctrinal unity at all.
3. In this era of the Self when individual choice is regnant in post-modernism resulting in “salad-bowl religions” (see above), “cafeteria Catholicism” and the emergent church, close communion is a call to live according to the Word together as His people standing together in the Faith. As a godly practice close communion is counter-cultural. It goes against the post-modernist grain. It’s salty. But if salt loses it’s saltiness, then…

That said, however, one such version that I thought was pretty straight forward went something like this: “Lutherans believe that in the Lord’s Supper are distributed to communicants Christ’s true and real body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, given and shed for the forgiveness of their sins. Participation in the Supper here in this congregation means that you agree with and you believe all of the the teachings of the Lutheran Church [here, omit "--Missouri Synod" so as not to be too descriptive of which body is worthy of the title 'Lutheran]. Baptized Christians who agree are welcome to commune.”

To McCain: Responses to your questions. “Do you believe that the consecrated bread being given into your mouth by the pastor is the body of Christ?” YES
“Do you believe that you are receiving, into your mouth, the body of Christ?” YES
“Do you believe that this is not a spiritual, or figurative, presence, but the true and substantial body of Christ under the bread and wine?” YES
“Do you believe that everyone receiving the consecrated elements is actually receiving Christ’s body and blood, regardless of what he/she believes about them?” YES

So I can commune in an LCMS congregation?

McCain response: No, Pastor Janssen, you would not. The point of my comments was simply responding to the comments of Pastor Chryst. None of us believe that a “bulletin blurb” is sufficient pastoral care regarding admission to the Lord’s Supper. While we can rejoice in what you claim to believe, the fact that you remain a pastor in an erring church body stands in stark contrast to what you say you believe. I would be interested in seeing/reading your public statement renouncing the ecumenical agreements of the ELCA, particularly those in which such severe compromises on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper were made. There is more here than merely a cognitive assent to a certain set of truths. There must follow also a consistent public confession. The fact that you continue to commune at a public altar of a church body that teaches so wrongly is of concern, and in keeping with the Eucharistic discipline of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, as evidenced in both East and West for millennia, would preclude you from communing at an altar of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

As long as you can agree with this statement:
(Apostles Creed)
(Something about the Real Presence)
(Sometimes something about being “Lutheran”)
then you are welcome to commune….

People who support this type of practice are vehemently opposed to denominational membership holding any sway in the question of who may commune. They sometimes sarcastically refer to an “LCMS ID card”. Granted, this is a “closer” communion than the ELCA’s “Y’all come”, or “If you commune at your church you are welcome here” or sometimes “Baptized Christians”. But it’s still not what the LCMS officially teaches and has historically practiced. I’d call the alternate LCMS approach “Close as in Close Enough” communion. Many call it “Open”. Many who practice it call it “Close” or “Close(d)”. But it is the main reason I prefer the term “Closed” for the historical and on-paper position of the LCMS. I’m curious where this alternate, yet very common LCMS approach (that I described above) comes from. Does anyone know where or how?

McCain: Absolutely correct. I have read many, many, many of these kinds of “disclaimer” statements re. admission to the Supper and I have been saddened to read any number of them that contain comments about the Real Presence that would be able to be affirmed by any good Calvinist. It would be interesting indeed to read a statement that would put forward the key questions that the Lutheran Confessions themselves indicate are the real “litmus tests” on the question of the Real Presence: “Do you believe that the consecrated bread being given into your mouth by the pastor is the body of Christ? Do you believe that you are receiving, into your mouth, the body of Christ? Do you believe that this is not a spiritual, or figurative, presence, but the true and substantial body of Christ under the bread and wine? Do you believe that everyone receiving the consecrated elements is actually receiving Christ’s body and blood, regardless of what he/she believes about them?” Now, of course, this is far more than should ever go into a bulletin, and points out the reality that the question about who does, or does not, commune at a Lutheran altar is not merely a personal decision to be made by the potential communicant, but I think that the fact that we do not put the questions that the Book of Concord demands be answered faithfully is telling.

“This problem with the religious “salad bowl” is not without its counterparts in religions other than Judaism. The analogy may not be precise, but I recently heard a minister from a liberal Protestant denomination tell how moved he was when, after years of visiting a Roman Catholic monastery, the abbot unexpectedly invited him to join the monks in taking communion. One must wonder whether the minister did not misinterpret his experience. Without having accepted the Roman Catholic theology of the Eucharist—without having subordinated himself to the community authorizing the action—was he a communicant in a Roman Catholic Mass or was he only impersonating someone taking communion in a Roman Catholic Mass? The difference is not merely one of communal identification, although it has enormous implications for communal identity. It is a question of the larger structure of norms, including norms of faith and authority, that give a ritual its meaning in any tradition.

The most important question is not where various practices come from. No set of ritual performances is pure and primordial. The key point is where the practices end up: in what structure of authority have they become embedded, and in the service of what affirmation do they now stand? And will that authority still be obeyed and will that affirmation still be made when the price of doing so is inconvenience, monetary loss, personal anguish, persecution, or martyrdom? Hyphenated obedience is no obedience at all.”

McCain response: You are a pastor in an erring church body, one which has, through its ecumenical agreements, effectively denied the Lutheran Confessions in practice, in regards to the Lord’s Supper and host of other issues. As a public representative of this church body for you to commune at a LCMS altar would be a public confession of a public unity in truth, when in fact there is none. As a lay member of a non-LCMS congregation you never should have been communed as a matter of policy.