# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1965_S282 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 282 SUPPLEMENT TO CTCR REPORT the Central District in 1895, indicates that theologians of other Lutheran bodies often spoke critically of the confessional position and the resulting practice in the Missouri Synod. He writes: As the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod, so also Missourian practice has, as it were, become proverbial. Our ecclesiastical opponents understand by it a harsh, rigoristic, legalistic practice. The same accusation is also made against our doctrine. ... This accusation does not fit. .. . Some call our practice legalistic for the very reason that it is in accord with the Word of God, in particular with the Gospel.59 The synodical fathers who insisted that the practice of the church should flow from, and be in harmony with the church’s confession, were by no means unaware of the fact that there are some matters in the area of churchly practice which are not established by the Word of God. On this point Dr. A. L. Graebner says: Churchly practice is in part established by the norm of God’s Word, in part subject to the free judgment of the Christian congregation.6¢ He adds: Insofar as churchly practice is established by the Word of God, the oneness of the norm demands unity of churchly practice as a divine command to the whole church. So far as churchly practice is subject to the free judgment of the congregation, unified churchly practice dare not be demanded as though it were a divine command. It was only of ecclesiastical practice clearly de- manded by the Word of God and by the Scriptural confession of the church that the fathers held that it was a norm for the granting or withholding of church fellowship. iii. Evaluation of Churchly Practice As a Criterion for Church Fellowship On the positive side it should be said that the founders of the Synodical Conference were deeply con- cerned to be and to remain loyal to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. They believed that this could be achieved only if churchly practice flowed from and was regulated by the church’s confession. On this point G. writes in Der Lutheraner: The Confession is not to be a mere empty formula, is not to remain a dead letter on the paper of the constitution, but the Confession must regulate the whole activity of a church body, its churchly actions must be in harmony with the Confession and permeated by the Confession.®1! It must be said that while the fathers emphasize time and time again that what they said about churchly prac- tice as a criterion for church fellowship concerning only practice demanded by the Word of God and the Lu- theran Confession, it appears that at times they de- manded for church fellowship more with respect to churchly practice than is warranted by the Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. The following theses from the 18 theses on church fellowship, which were dis- cussed and accepted’ during the early years of the Syn- odical Conference may serve as examples: Thesis eleven: It is a contradiction of the Confession, when a church body is content that her pastors do not have a proper but only a temporary call from their con- gregations, or if the church body itself encourages this disorder through the custom of licensing. Thesis twelve: It is a crying contradiction of the Con- fession when a church body which calls itself Lutheran and desires to be Lutheran does not show earnest zeal, so far as it is able, to start orthodox parochial schools where these are not in existence.62 Furthermore, such demands in matters of practice coupled with charges of laxity in discipline were a major factor in disturbing the relations of the synods in the Synodical Conference particularly in the decades pre- ceding the year 1960, leading finally to the withdrawal, first of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and then of the Wisconsin Synod from the Synodical Conference. What appeared to some not only allowable but perhaps even necessary in the light of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions was pronounced sinful unionism by others. While at the organization of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America in 1872 the founding fathers appear to have been able to agree on the “Theses on Church Fellowship,” as time went on it became increasingly impossible for all at all times to agree on “the deductions which properly follow from the words of this confession” or on the precise churchly practice which would in a given situation conform to the confession. ABBREVIATIONS BC The Book of Concord, trans. Theodore G. Tappert et al. Philadelphia, 1959. NPF A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, eds. Ph. Schaff and H. Wace. Buffalo and New York, 1886—1900; reprint, Grand Rapids, 1952 ff. PG Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1857—66. PL Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1844—55. WA_ D2: Martin Luthers Werke. Weimar, 1883 ff. Tischreden (WA TR). FOOTNOTES 1 Cf. Canons VI, XXXII, XXXIII of the Synod of Lao- dicea, and Canon VI of the Council of Constantinople (NPF, Second Series, XIV, 127, 149. 183). See also Werner Elert, Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsaechlich des Ostens (Berlin, 1954), pp. 93—96, and Tom Hardt, “Keine Kirchengemeinschaft mit Haeretikern!” Lutherische Blaetter, XII, 65 (July, 1960), pp. 62 ff. 2 Epist. 222, 2 (PL 33, 999): trans. in Roy J. Deferrari, ed., Fathers of the Church (New York, 1956), XIII, 114f. 3 Cf. Heinz Brunotte and Otto Weber, eds., Evange- lisches Handlexikon (Goettingen, 1956), I, 950: “Neben der Bildung des Kanons der HI. Schrift entstanden schon sehr frueh in den Gemeinden Glaubensbekenntnisse zum litur- gischen und katechetischen Gebrauch, die allmaehlig im Apostolikum ihre eigentliche Gestalt fanden und in dieser Form zur Glaubensregel (regula fidei) wurden.” 4 Quaestionum Septemdecim in Matthaeum Liber Unus, xi, 1 (PL 35, 1367). The English ‘translation is by Fred Kramer, as also in subsequent quotations unless otherwise noted. 5 De Utilitate Credendi, 1 (PL 42, 65); trans. in J. H. S. Burleigh, ed., Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, 1953), VI, 291. 6 De Civitate Dei, xviii, 51 (PL 41, 613); translated in NPF, First Series, II, 392. 7 De Utilitate Credendi, 1. See footnote 5. 8 De Baptismo Contra Donatistas, iv, 16 (PL 43, 169); translated in NPF, First Series, IV, 457. 9 Epist. 48 (PL 33, 160); trans. in Roy J. Deferrari, ed., Fathers of the Church (New York, 1951), XII, 182. 10 Quaestionum Septemdecim, etc. See footnote 4. 11 Contra Cresconium Donatistam (PL 43, 469 ff.). 12 Kine Freiheit des Sermons pdpstlichen Ablass und Gnade belangend (WA 1, 391).