# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1965_S205 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 3. CHURCH RELATIONS 205 evaluate these constitutional modifications on the prac- tice of the LWF. On account of our position toward the German territorial churches that are members of the LWF, we are committed to special caution and con- scientiousness. Affiliation with the LWF dare not effect church fellowship with such churches from which we had to separate for the reason of tolerated heresy. The LWF includes not only Lutheran churches undermined by modern existentialist theology, but, e.g. also the United (uniert) Church of Pomerania. As the tendency of the LWF, hitherto outspoken and retained also after the constitutional modification, goes toward generally establishing pulpit and altar fellowship, joining the LWF would practically be tantamount to the end of our Lu- theran Free Churches in Germany. We are grateful for the second point in Report on Lutheran World Federation, the study document of your church. There you point out, as it has been done time and again before, “that everything that shall be done in this respect may be undertaken in close contact and cooperation with the sister churches of the Missouri Synod.” This encourages us, reverend fathers and brethren in Christ, to submit our request to you to avoid any resolutions from your convention importing an affiliation of your church with the Lutheran World Federation. THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN FREE CuHurcH oF GERMANY HEInricH WILLKomMM, President [3-36 Un] Communication from the Ev. Lutheran Church — Synod of France and Belgium Our dear sister Synod in Germany, the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church, through its President, Pastor H. Willkomm, has graciously communicated to us a copy of its memorial addressed to your convention on Feb- ruary 27 and thus given us this opportunity to join her in her effort toward safeguarding unity of action within our worldwide family of confessional Lutheran Churches with regard to relationship to the Lutheran World Federation. We welcome this opportunity. Also our Evangelical Lutheran Church—Synod of France and Belgium, through its Executive Council, herewith respectfully submits to your venerable convention the following: 1. We do wholeheartedly approve and endorse the urgent plea of our German sister church: “to avoid any resolutions importing an affiliation with the Lu- theran World Federation.” 2. We recall in this respect the well-documented Memorandum approved, and the Resolution voted by our own delegate synod assembled in Mulhouse (France), already on Nov. 1, 1963, wherein our church urged all our sister churches, especially of the Synodical Conference, to reaffirm the resolution which they adopted in common in Uelzen in 1952, to decline full membership in the LWF “as long as the LWF in its executive organization and/or in its member-churches does not make of the Lutheran Confessions also de facto the norma normata of all doctrine and church-practice.” 3. For we believe that the still ongoing study re- ferred to in the memorial of our German brethren, “in view of evaluating the constitutional modification on the practice of the Lutheran World Federation,” will only show that these changes of its constitution voted by the LWF in Helsinki have changed neither the struc- ture nor the essence nor least of all the policy of the Federation. Recent experience of action taken by the LWF, even after said modifications have become effec- tive, have only strengthened us in this conviction. (Thus, in September, 1964, despite previous official investigation and warning, the LWF has granted recog- nition to the so-called “Protestant-Lutheran Church” of Brussels, which had separated from our church and from the Missouri Synod to join the liberal Protestant Union Church of Belgium.) 4. There is in these constitutional changes a very evident self-contradiction: a. On one hand, part of these “changes” tend toward accentuating the alleged character of the LWF as a mere “free conference” or “agency” or “platform for doctrinal discussion.” (N.B.: It is to be noted, however, that, no matter whether it acts on its own or only on borrowed au- thority, the LWF admittedly accepts the responsibility to exercise real spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and therefore does act as a church; just as any synod is rightly regarded as a church even though it acts only on behalf of its member congregations!) b. On the other hand, certain changes voted in Hel- sinki tend to strengthen the “church character” of the Federation (e.g., stronger doctrinal basis; expulsion of member churches made possible) — although, as shown under paragraph 3, the LWF has despite these changes manifested in reality its continued readiness to accept union churches, hence to conduct itself as a liberal church union! c. With all these self-contradictions, must we not draw the conclusion: Let the LWF choose, which of the two courses it wants to take — and then go all the way in the one chosen direction: Either let it act as a mere agency for cooperation in externals only and for providing a platform for free theological discussion. Or else let it decide to act (as it does in reality) as a real church organization but then in a fully respon- sible manner: by accepting or excluding member churches according to correct Scriptural principles of church fellowship! The LWF cannot logically pretend to go in two oppo- site directions at the same time. 5. It is a fallacy to maintain that a church can accept and hold full membership in the LWF without also sharing full responsibility for all that the LWF does or fails to do, whether this be done “on its own au- thority” or “merely as an agent of one or several member churches.”