# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S83
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL MATTERS $3

of Fellowship” (Detroit Proceedings. 1965), pp. 288 and
289, point 2: “Our Synod should work zealously for the
extension of this fellowship by engaging in doctrinal
discussions with other churches’: and

WHEREAS, Our synodical position is delineated in
various sources, such as:

1. New York Convention Workbook, 1967, “Theology
of Fellowship.” page 382, quotes A. L. Graebner:
“Churchly practice is the sum total of the formal actions
and institutions which belong to the life of the Church
as such.” The resolution of the Board for Missions be-
longs to such formal action and the three-church mis-
sionary training program with its Governing Committee
and directorship and becomes an institution that carries
on church programs and practices. Intimate spiritual
relationships are maintained in such a training school
with its classroom fellowship and worship periods. The
board has taken an action which establishes church
practice as surely as though the Synod resolved it at
a convention.

2. In an essay (undated). “Unionism — What It Is
and How It Is Carried Out Among the Other Lutheran
Bodies,” South Wisconsin District President Herbert
Baxmann writes: “Dr. Fritz in his Pastoral Theology
defines unionism as ‘joining in religious worship or in
religious work or in both by such as are not in doc-
trinal agreement.’ The Concordia Cyclopedia, under
the editorship of the sainted Drs. L. Fuerbringer, Th.
Engelder, and Paul E. Kretzmann, gave this definition
of unionism: ‘Religious unionism consists in joint wor-
ship and work of those not united in doctrine. Its es-
sence is an agreement to disagree’ ” (p. 2). ‘Dr. Koehler
in his summary of ‘Christian Doctrine’ writes
‘Unionism is quite a different thing from unity of doc-
trine. Unionism, which asks the various denominations
to form a union, or at least to maintain church-fellow-
ship among themselves, despite their disagreement in
doctrine — that allegedly being a matter of indifference
—is a gross violation of the divine command. Further-
more, it does not serve the cause of unity. but per-
petuates division, since it demands toleration of the
original cause of division, false doctrine.’ (P. 249)”
(P. 4)

3. In “Essays on the Lutheran Confessions Basic to
Lutheran Cooperation” (published jointly by the LCMS
and NLC, 1961) we read a summary report by Dr. Mar-
tin Franzmann, “The NLC presentation looks toward
a variety of ecumenical relationships and envisages de-
grees or stages of fellowship proportionate to the degree
of consensus which has been attained. The Missouri
presentation is oriented toward doctrinal confessional
unity between Lutherans and raises the question of the
damnamus as indispensable to the proclamation of the
Gospel as both a savor of life and a savor of death.”
Here, too, the LCMS position is shown to be in contra-
diction to degrees or stages of fellowship proportionate
to the degree of consensus attained (the NLC position).

4. In attempting to give evidence that the new
LCUSA would not be practicing unionism Dr. M. H.

Franzmann and Dr. A. O. Fuerbringer write in an ar-
ticle “The Lutheran Council in the USA” in the CTM,
April 1964 (p. 222): “This ... does not mean that all
the participating bodies unite to do religious teaching or
carry on campus ministries together (which would
amount to pulpit and altar fellowship).” As is the
Missouri Synod position, the two writers say that re-
ligiqus teaching would amount to fellowship. To do it
without synodical declaration would be unionism of one
description or another (Handbook, p.17, Art. VI, 2).
How can the board fulfill the main objectives without
involving theology and without compromising our
church’s position on fellowship?

.. Dr. John W. Behnken said at Rockford, Ill., on
Nov. 14. 1946. to the American Lutheran Conference in
a presentation “Fellowship Among Lutherans” (CPH,
no date): “Today efforts are being put forth toward
fellowship via cooperation. Co-operative efforts have
been proclaimed and heralded as harbingers of Lu-
theran fellowship and Lutheran union. Let me speak
very frankly. If such co-operation involves joint work
in missions, in Christian education. in student welfare
work, in joint services celebrating great events, then
co-operation is just another name for pulpit, altar, and
prayer fellowship. Without doctrinal agreement this
spells compromise. It means yielding in doctrinal po-
sitions. Such fellowship will not stand in the light of
Scripture. You realize, of course, that Missouri has
been co-operating in externals in matters which do not
involve pulpit. altar, and prayer fellowship. Such co-
operation should not and must not be interpreted as
a step toward fellowship or a method of bringing about
fellowship among Lutherans.” (Emphasis ours)

6. The “Theses on Fellowship” sent to Missouri
Synod clergy by Dr. John W. Behnken (sent Feb. 15,
1949, by resolution of Synod — Proceedings, 1947,
p. 523) contain the following two theses which have a
bearing on the present situation: Page 13: “PARTIAL
FELLowsHiIP? (20) The outward marks by which we
recognize the unity of the Spirit are a common con-
fession. perfectly joined together in the same
judgment’ (1 Cor. 1:10). On the basis of these marks
alone may fellowship be established (Par.19). Where
these outward marks of the unity of the Spirit are
lacking. we have no right to give expression even to
partial unity by limited fellowship, for ‘a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump’ (Gal. 5:9). Hence it is a
violation of a Scriptural principle to establish a degree
of fellowship commensurate with the degree of unity
achieved.” Page 15: “UNIoNIsmM (23) Sinful toleration
of error (unionism) occurs 1. When two parties not in
doctrinal agreement grant each other the right to enter-
tain and to teach their views even though one view is
un-Scriptural: .. . 4. When they engage in joint re~
ligious acts which normally express agreement in faith
or an approval of each other's faith. (Doctrines con-
fessed are always a phase of a person’s religious con-
victions.) It is immaterial whether such unionistic ac-
tivities result from a formal agreement to differ or by