# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S94
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

94 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

been willing to work together with LCMS representatives in
arranging for multi-level discussions between our two churches
through the ALC-LCMS Coordinating Committee. (The report
of the LCMS Coordinating Committee members is attached to
this report.)

It is the commission's hope and prayer that through these
efforts and with God's blessings progress can be made in
resolving the doctrinal disagreements between our two
churches.

c. Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches

Apart from the discussions held between the AELC and
LCMS representatives within LCUSA., no meetings have been
held between representatives of these two church bodies during
the past biennium. In light of the recent decisions involving the
merger of the AELC with the ALC and LCA, the commission at
its November 1982 meeting reviewed the status of discussions
between representatives of the LCMS and the AELC. The com-
mission noted that a set of four theses had been formulated by
the participants in these discussions for the consideration of
the CTCR as it monitors these contacts. The commission
requested the LCMS representatives to advise the commission
as to whether the commission should proceed with a review of
them. Having received an affirmative response, the com-
mission proceeded to examine these statements. The com-
mission concluded:

The four theses, while containing some appropriate empha-
ses, are fundamentally inadequate to serve as a basis for
church fellowship. The theses. for example, fail to make it clear
that according to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions
external unity (church fellowship) is constituted by agreement
in the faith which is confessed (fides quae) and not by faith in
the heart (fides qua) (Matt. 3:12: 13:24-30, 36-43; 1 Cor. 1:10: 2
Tim. 1:13-14; 2:19; Gal. 2:9; Acts 2:42: cf. Ap VILand VIII, 12-13,
17-19; Preface to The Book of Concord, p. 6; FC SD, XI, 94-96;
re SD NII. 33; FC SD Rule and Norm, l4; FC SD Rule and
Norm, |).

d. Evangelical Lutheran Federation

The commission has received reports on discussions be-
tween representatives of the Evangelical Lutheran Federation
(ELF) and the LCMS during this biennium. Representing the
LCMS in these discussions were Dr. Karl Barth, Rev. Jerald
Joersz, Rev. Glenn O’Shoney, and Dr. Robert Preus. In re-
sponse to a request from Dr. Bohlmann regarding a renewed
proposal from the ELF for altar and pulpit fellowship with the
LCMS. the commission advised that the LCMS relate to this
group of congregations as it has in the past with independent
congregations and that the ELF’s pastors be invited to join the
LCMS.

e. Evangelical Lutheran Synod

While discussions have not been held between representa-
tives of the ELS and the LCMS during this biennium, the
commission, through the President of the Synod and its staff.
has been kept informed on contacts with the ELS. Rev. Jerald
Joersz and Dr.Samuel Nafzger. CTCR staff. attended the 64th
(1981) and 65th (1982) annual conventions of the ELS. Ob-
servers of the ELS also attended the 54th regular convention of
the LCMS in St. Louis in 1981.

It continues to be the prayer of the commission that
representatives of the LCMS and ELS may soon begin dis-
cussions aimed at the restoration of altar and pulpit fellowship
between our churches.

f. Lutheran Church in America

The LCMS continues to carry out discussions with repre-
sentatives of the LCA through its participation in the Division
of Theological Studies of LCUSA. The LCA has repeatedly
declined invitations from the LCMS in recent vears to hold
doctrinal discussions between our two churches. since it takes
the position that it already is in fellowship with “any church
body subscribing to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and
Luther's Small Catechism.”

Dr. Samuel Nafzger. executive secretary of the commission,
has provided regular reports on the topics under discussion
with representatives of the LCA in the DTS of LCUSA.

g. Lutheran Church of Australia

During the past biennium the commission has continued to
maintain contacts with the Lutheran Church of Australia with
which the Synod has enjoyed many fraternal associations over
the vears. Dr. Robert Preus, president of Concordia Theological
Seminary, Ft. Wayne, and a member of the CTCR, gave the
commission a report on his sabbatical leave of absence in 1981
during which he taught at the Lutheran Church of Australia’s
seminary in Adelaide.

h. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

In 1981 the Synod invited the Wisconsin Synod “‘to engage
in doctrinal discussions intended to lead toward declaration(s)
of altar and pulpit fellowship” (1981 Res. 3-08, ‘To Develop
Closer Bonds with WELS. ELS, and ELF”). The WELS de-
clined this invitation, and therefore no meetings were held
between representatives of the LCMS and the WELS during
this biennium. However. Dr. Karl Barth, chairman of the
CTCR., attended the 46th biennial convention of the WELS in
August 1981 as an obvserver of the LCMS. Three repre-
sentatives of the WELS attended as observers the 1981 con-
vention of the LCMS in St. Louis.

In November 1982 the CTCR received from the WELS's
Commission on Inter-Church Relations an evaluation of the
commission's 1981 report on “The Nature and Implications of
the Concept of Fellowship.” The commission is grateful to the
WELS's CICR for devoting its attention to this report and for
formulating its response. The commission hopes that the
opportunity will arise in the near future for discussions
between representatives of the LCMS and the WELS which
can result in closer ties between our churches.

B. Ecumenical Dialogs
1. Lutheran—Episcopal

While the second series of the Lutheran-Episcopal dialog,
held under the auspices of the Division of Theological Studies
of LCUSA and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical
Relations of the Episcopal Church, completed its work in
November 1980, the commission has continued to monitor
developments regarding Lutheran-Episcopal relations in the
ALC. LCA, AELC, and the Episcopal Church. In response to
the recommendations of the ALC, LCA, AELC, and Episcopal
representatives of the Lutheran-Episcopal Dialog IH (LED I1),
study groups were formed in these churches for the purpose of
formulating proposals for adoption at their respective con-
ventions. A representative of the LCMS was invited to attend
three of these consultations as an observer-consultant. Rev.
Jerald Joersz. assistant executive secretary of the CTCR.
attended these sessions at the request of President Bohlmann.
It should be noted that the LCMS representatives of LED II did
not accept the recommendations of the other churches, but
adopted a separate set of recommendations(cf. 1981 Workbook.
p. 154).

In response to a common proposal presented to their 1982
conventions, the ALC, LCA. and AELC simultaneously estab-
lished “a relationship of Interim Sharing of the Eucharist”
with the Episcopal Church. At the same time the 67th General
Convention of the Episcopal Church, meeting in New Orleans
Sep. 5—15. 1982. adopted essentially the same resolution. In
this mutual agreement these churches expressed the hope that
“full communion” (altar and pulpit fellowship! will some day
be established. recognized each other as churches “in which
the Gospel is preached and taught.” encouraged common
activities at various levels. and authorized an “interim” re-
lationship whereby: (1) communicants of the respective
churches are welcomed at each other's altars: (2) joint cele-
brations of the Eucharist may take place where deemed
appropriate by bishops district presidents: and (3) the ex-
perience of this “Interim Sharing of the Eucharist” be com-
municated at regular intevals to the other Anglican and
Lutheran Churches throughout the world. Finally, the common
agreement proposes a third series of the LED “for the dis-
cussion of any other outstanding questions that must be
resolved before full communion (communioinsacris altarand
pulpit fellowship) can be established between the respective
churches. ...”

While the full implications of these actions are vet to be