# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S108 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 108 CHURCH RELATIONS united voice, and wielding influence far beyond their numerical strength in a community that is the heart of the two Carolinas and the economic and cultural center for more than 2,000,000 people (75 mile radius). (For instance, our own pastor’s influence is widely recognized, both as a civic and religious leader — having served, for example, as an elected commissioner of the public school system —and our own congregation is recognized for its early and advanced activities in the area of human relations and racial integration. To- gether with fellow pastors and sister congregations, the Lutherans are acknowledged as factors in the early development and continuation of Charlotte’s enlightened and progressive racial and social attitudes. This is just one area of significance.) Lutheran unity came the hard way. When our pastor came to the Carolinas nearly 40 years ago as the first field missionary of the Synod, he was bitterly and actively opposed by other Lutherans (although they were serving less than 10 percent of the counties in the two Carolinas). He was followed from station to station by an official of the Lutheran Church in America (then the United Lutheran Church), who attended his ser- vices and took the names of people in attendance and subsequently warned them against Missouri as “Yan- kees, foreigners, exclusive, troublemakers, lodge-haters, nigger-lovers,” etc. Every effort was made to alienate from Missouri both Lutherans and non-Lutherans, the latter comprising more than 90 percent of the new con- gregations established. There was good reason, theo- logically and practically, for the missionary and the congregations he founded to be prejudiced against and to hold aloof from the other Lutherans — except for the Word and will of Christ and the advice of such re- spected theologians of our Synod as Dr. Theodore En- gelder and Dr. H. B. Hemmeter (both of whom served our seminaries). Their advice resulted in a gradual growth of friendship and association, understanding, confidence, and good will— which soon developed into deliberate consultations and mutual study, and ulti- mately brought about agreement and unity both in doctrine and practice. For a number of years we have now been able to present a united front and voice, with ever-increasing influence and effectiveness. In 1968, the pastors and congregations of Mecklen- burg Circuit 9 submitted a memorial to the South- eastern District in convention at Baltimore, which stated: Wuereas in the North Carolina Circuit No.9 area, after much study, there has existed for some time the basis for Fellowship, and WHEREAS Circuit No.9 pastors and congregations feel conscience-bound to remove the scandalous separation between the Synods, therefore Be It Resolved to memorialize the Southeastern District 1) to declare the readiness of the Southeastern Dis- trict to practice Fellowship with the American Lutheran Church, and 2) that the District memorialize Synod to declare Pul- pit and Altar Fellowship with the American Lutheran Church, and 3) that the District declare that it feel conscience- bound to proceed with Selective Fellowship should Synod fail to declare Fellowship in Denver, 1969. The Southeastern District took the action requested in the first two resolves. The third resolve was set aside out of consideration for the synodical President’s requests that no “pressure tactics” or “threatening reso- lutions” be submitted to Synod. The substance of this circuit resolution still stands. While it applies technically only to relations with The ALC, the situation and concern actually applies to the LCA as well. Our congregation asks: 1. Does the Synod maintain that in such a situation it is God’s will that the effective- ness and influence of our work in the area should be disturbed or hazarded by the scandal of a divided Lu- theranism (simply because somewhere beyond our area some fellow-Lutherans of all three Synods don’t agree as we do)? 2. And does the Synod maintain that in a matter of conscience, our congregation should be guided by the resolutions of a synodical convention rather than by what to us is the manifest will of Christ for our situa- tion? It is our conviction that the Synod in convention at Denver should at least recognize the principle of selec- tive fellowship with LCA congregations. We are con- science-bound to practice such fellowship. Tue LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION Charlotte, N.C. D. A. WARNICKE, Secretary (3-43) To Refrain from Selective Fellowship Whereas, The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod has always recognized the dangers inherent in the prac- tice of selective fellowship; and Wuereas, The last convention of the Synod again reiterated the position of the Synod on selective fellow- ship: A. WHEREAS, On the one hand, the congregations and members of the Synod join in renouncing unionism and syncretism of every description, such as: a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church; b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession. (Constitution of The Lutheran Church —Missouri Synod, Article VI, 2, a, b) therefore be it Resolved, That we refrain from selective pulpit fel- lowship with “heterodox congregations or . . . congrega- tions of mixed confession”; and B. WueEreaS, On the other hand, all congregations and members of the Synod have voluntarily united for “the conservation and promotion of the unity of the true faith (Eph.4:3-6; 1Cor.1:10) and a united defense against schism and sectarianism (Rom.16:17)” (op. cit., Article It, 1); and Wuereas, Efforts are accordingly now being made within Lutheranism to enter into fellowship on the basis of Scripture and the Confessions, and this fellowship ought not be endangered by anticipating it; and Whereas, The practice of selective pulpit fellowship would create problems and disharmony in the Synod; therefore be it