# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S393
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

392

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

of selective fellowship. ?: Memorials requesting that The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod permit selective fellowship have been submitted to each of
the last seven conventions of the Synod.>?In addition, a number of responses
to the CTCR's “Bible Study on Fellowship” have also suggested that the
Synod adopt this way of relating to other Christian churches. It is argued that
since differences within church bodies are often as great as those dividing
denominations. selective fellowship offers a model for the practice of church
fellowship which is faithful not only to the Scriptural mandate to preserve the
truth of God's Word but also to the apostolic exhortations to manifest Jove
for all fellow members of Chnist’s body, no matter where they may be located
But what is selective fellowship?® The answers to this question are

5: Minutes of the Amencan Lutheran Church, 1946, p. 23.
Quoted by Edward C. Fendt in The Struggle for Lutheran Unity
and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930's to the Early
1970's, pp. 41—42. This resolution states: “WHEREAS the matter
of ‘Selective Fellowship’ was discussed at the 1944 convention of
the Church and was referred to the districts for study and
consideration. and WHEREAS the Committee on Fellowship of the
American Lutheran Church reports that all districts endorsed
‘Selective Fellowship’ in principle, therefore be it Resolved that
pastors and parishes of the American Lutheran Church shall be
free to have pulpit. altar, and prayer fellowship with such pastors
and parishes of other Lutheran Synods as agree, in doctrine and
practice, with the declarations made in Sections 1, 2,3, and 4 of
Article Il—Confession of Faith—of the Constitution of the
American Lutheran Church.” This resolution was based on a
statement prepared by Dr. M. Reu

32Cf. 1967 Convention Workbook, p. 60, 1969 Convention
Warkbook, pp. 107—108; 1971 Convention Workbook, p. 190:
1973 Convention Workbook, pp. 90—91; 1975 Convention
Workbook, p. 129: 1977 Convention Workbook, p. 122; and 1979
Convention Workbook, pp. 118—119.

33 The Lutheran Cyclopedia defines selective fellowship as
the principle whereby the exercise of Christian fellowship (e.g.,
pulpit, altar, prayer) is determined by an individual or by a local
church” (1975 ed.. s. v. “Selective Fellowship”). But The Ency-
clopedia of the Lutheran Church gives this definition: “When one
church body establishes pulpit and altar fellowship with another,
it may be further stipulated that such fellowship may be selective.
ie., that only that pastor or congregation be admitted to this
fellowship in whose case it is felt genuine Christian fellowship is
not violated, say, for doctrinal reasons” (1965 ed., s. v. “Selective
Fellowship”)

28

others regard selective fellowship as a model for external unity in the church
which provides an opportunity for Christians at the local level to give
expression to their unity in Christ despite their differences in doctrine. *

It is not necessary to attempt to describe here each and every variation
of this model. Quite obviously, different forms of selective fellowship come
into conflict with different principles of fellowship. A selective fellowship. for
example. which would base altar and pulpit fellowship on faith in the heart
confuses spiritual fellowship in the body of Christ (Thesis 1) and church

and proclaim the saving faith in Jesus Christ and sincerely work
to serve Him. This faith unites us with these pastors and
congregations, as well as with the individual believers. Whatever
our denominational conventions may assert, God says that we
have fellowship with those pastors and congregations (non
Lutheran as well as Lutheran), and we need to find ways of
expressing this God-given fellowship with them. ... Questions of
how and with whom to acknowledge and express fellowship are
best decided on the level where that acknowledgement and
expression is to take place. ... We on the local level should not let
conventions and. or synodical administrations interfere with our
exercise of this right and responsibility.”

*Cf. the following reponse of a pastor's conference to the
CTCR's “Bible Study on Fellowship”: “It must border on false
doctrine to believe that sinful human beings can know the Gospel!
of Christ purely and can communicate that Gospel of Christ
purely... . Fellowship is not ‘establishing relationships.” Feilow-
ship exists through ‘the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’
We are united in ‘one body and one Spirit... one hope... one
Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is
above ail and through all and in all’ (Eph. 4:3-6). Christians have
that fellowship regardless of whether church bodies establish
relationships or not. Individual Christians have both the right and
perhaps the obligation to practice (give manifestation to a belief)
on an individual basis the fellowship they have in Christ. Some
relationships may be best established by churches, such as altar
and pulpit fellowship. However, to imply that all activities that
demonstrate our unity in Christ should be determined by church
bodies is unsupportable. . . . Just as a denomination’s declaration
of altar and pulpit fellowship with another denomination does not
determine that all congregations in those two denominations
must have altar and pulpit fellowship, so the lack of declaration of
altar and pulpit fellowship should not determine that fellowship
activities cannot be appropriate in certain instances.”

30

almost as numerous and varied as those who propose it as a model for
working toward external unity in the church. There are those who regard
selective fellowship as a church body’s decision to allow each of its local
congregations to decide on whether or not to engage in altar and puipit
fellowship with a congregation of another church body on the basis of a
repudiation of the false doctrine(s) officially held by the denomination to
which it belongs. ** Some, thinking of church fellowship as being constituted
by faith in the heart (fides qua), advocate this model because they believe
that the loca! congregation is ina better position than synodical! conventions
to recognize with which members of other denominations its members are
already in fellowship by virtue of their common faith in Jesus Christ.5? Still

Cf. the following response of anLCMS Bible class to the
CTCR's “Bible Study on Fellowship”: “The question before a
synodical convention should not be whether we have church
fellowship [with another denomination]. .. . Rather, we believe
the Synod can and should go on record as condemning particular
false teachings or unscriptural practices taught or tolerated in
these bodies The doctrinal integrity of the Synod would thus
be safeguarded. It would remain in the sphere of the individual
congregation whether to commune guests from synods which
have thus been marked as teaching or tolerating false teachings.
It would remain in the sphere of the local congregation whether to
have a joint service or activity with a particular congregation from
such a synod. We think this would be realistic, since the label! of
false teaching does not apply in each individual case.”

§ Cf. the following response of anLCMS Bible class to the
CTCR’s “Bible Class on Fellowship”: “It is the experience and
belief of the people in this Bible class that there are many
individuals who have faith in Christ, who trust God’s grace, and
who sincerely—-though imperfectly—desire to serve the Lord,
and that these people are found in varying degrees in most all
Christian denominations. We have a God-given fellowship with ail
these people. a fellowship which is not destroyed by the fact that
we each hold membership in different imperfect denominations
We are duty-bound to express our fellowship with these people
and need to find ways of doing so. It makes no sense for us to
refuse to join them in prayer, worship, etc., because some people
in their denominations are out of fellowship with us or because
some things are taught in their denominations which we consider
wrong. Such refusal is not Biblical... . Not only are there many
individuals with Christian faith in other denominations, but many
of the congregations and pastors of these denominations confess

29

fellowship (Thesis 7).5° Congregational decisions to engage in altar and pulpit
fellowship despite differences in doctrine violate the divine mandate to
confess the faith as it is taught in the Scriptures for the sake of the edification
and extension of the church (Thesis 6). But in view of the general confusion
surrounding the meaning of selective fellowship and taking into account the
high mobility of both lay people and clergy in a time when the theological
Positions of pastors and congregations of even the same denomination vary
50 greatly, ai! forms of selective fellowship. including that which would base
congregational altar and pulpit fellowship on agreement in doctrine. must be
regarded today as falling short of fulfilling the law of Christian love which
seeks the edification of Christ’s body (Thesis 5). Selective fellowship not only
provides an opportunity for offense by appearing to be indifferent to
doctrine, but it is also inherently conducive to chaos, confusion, individual-
ism, and even rebeilion.** Moreover, as Hermann Sasse has emphasized. it is

3° The view that church members at the local level are ina
better position than national conventions to determine with
whom they shouid give expression to their unity in the body of
Christ falsely assumes that church fellowship is based on faith in
the heart instead of on agreement in confession.

38Cf. Edward C. Fendt's comments on the ALC’s 1946
adoption of selective fellowship. Dr. Fendt writes: “No amount of
rationalization or interpretation could make the proposal of
Selective Fellowship acceptable or workable. It was regarded as
effrontery and audacity on the part of the ALC and rightly so. It
encouraged individualism and ‘rebellion’ (at least breaking rank)
in the other churches. But the most objectionable feature was the
suggestion (requirement?) to agree with Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Article Il in the Constitution of the ALC (just a few steps short of
applying for membership in the ALC). ... Many years later... Dr
Franklin Clark F ry with his characteristic articulation and candor
described the ALC’s resolution of Selective Fellowship accurate-
ly. He regarded it as inept and offensive ‘church politics.’ He said
with a bit of laughter: ‘Every time | accept an invitation to speak
under any kind of auspices | know that I do not qualify. | am
neither in agreement with the Pittsburgh Agreement nor with
Article Il of the ALC Constitution. One of these days I shall never
again accept an invitation from ALC sources until this business of
Selective Fellowship is rescinded.” The Struggle for Lutheran
Unity and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930's to the
Early 1970’s (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980),
pp. 42-43.

31