# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S146 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 146 CHURCH RELATIONS (3-140) Not to Enter into Pulpit and Altar Fellowship at This Time Wuereas, The degree of doctrinal unity between The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod and The American Lutheran Church has not yet sufficiently been achieved to warrant fellowship; and Wuereas, An even greater lack of unity exists be- tween these two church bodies on anti-Christian (lodge) memberships coexisting with Lutheran communicant memberships, especially with respect to the implementa- tion of the accepted and written policies; and Wuereas, Heretofore unequaled disunity and di- vergence of doctrinal belief and practice exist within our own Missouri Synod, making it highly inadvisable to enter into fellowship with another Lutheran body be- fore our own internal differences are rectified; therefore be it Resolved, That The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod not enter into pulpit and altar fellowship with The American Lutheran Church at this time but be encouraged to work and pray for a sufficient unity of belief and practice to exist in fact in the near future, both within and between these two church bodies. CHRIST THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH Redlands, Calif. MEtvin ALHOoRN, Chairman EuGENE PAu.us, Pastor (3-141) Not to Enter upon Fellowship Now Since the convention of the Synod at Denver will decide whether we shall at this time declare ourselves in pulpit and altar fellowship with The American Lu- theran Church, and since it is our conviction that affir- mative action would result in much harm, we make the earnest plea to the convention that it resolve not to enter upon such fellowship now. In support of our plea we give the following reasons: 1. Doctrinal Reason. The Missouri Synod’s position on the Bible (inspiration and inerrancy) as given in the Brief Statement is not shared by The ALC. While its Constitution may seem to be in agreement with our position, yet this position is vitiated by what is actually being taught on this subject in The ALC. Dr. Robert Preus in his essay “To Join or Not to Join” gives ample quotations which prove that instructors at ALC terminal theological schools do not believe in and do not teach the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Also, quotations could be given from The ALC’s highest official, Dr. Fredrik Schiotz, that he does not believe in inerrancy in the Brief Statement sense. Quotations could likewise be given from the literature put out for use in ALC parishes by official ALC boards to show that these offi- cials, too, deny inerrancy. To establish fellowship with a body which so emphatically differs from us would be neither pleasing to God nor enjoyable to us; it could, however, be the source of much friction and irritation. 2. Lodge Policy Reason. Theoretically, the Missouri Synod and The ALC are rather close to each other with respect to the sinfulness of membership in organizations which have a religion but have a Christ-denying reli- gion. In practice we are far apart from each other. Lodge members, whom we cannot for conscience’ sake receive into membership with us or whom we must deprive of such membership, are received into member- ship with ALC congregations. Such action is often “excused” by the claim that thus lodge members can be dealt with and can be persuaded to quit their sinful lodge affiliation. Observation, however, teaches us that in many instances they are permitted to retain their lodge membership year after year, very often till death. Declaring fellowship with a body with that kind of a lodge practice would appear to condone such a spine- less policy, would certainly undermine our own position, would weaken our testimony, and would make the lodge member feel secure while continuing in his sinful affiliation. 3. Practical Reason. While one surely must say (and we say it quite joyfully) that many ALC pastors and many laymen take identical positions with us in the two points mentioned, the deplorable fact is that The ALC leadership, its influential men, its profesors train- ing its future ministers, take wrong and offensive posi- tions. At a recent District convention a representative of the Missouri Synod’s President stated in reply to a question that if we declare fellowship and then dis- cover that some ALC professor is teaching false doc- trine, we would not be able to do anything about it. If the convention establishes fellowship, men in our Synod would, for conscience’ sake, refuse to practice fellowship; the rifts in our Synod (now bad enough) would become worse; it is probable that the number of congregations, pastors, and laymen who in recent years have severed affiliation with the Missouri Synod (already impressively large) would grow sharply. Let us not become guilty of the folly of making a deplorable situation still more deplorable. A good decision by the convention would be to in- form The ALC that we shall be willing to discuss fellow- ship with that body when it has brought its practical teaching of doctrine into line with its Constitution and when it has caused all its congregations to refuse mem- bership to any persons affiliated with a Christ-denying lodge. MEssIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH Detroit, Mich. HarLey GREENBURG, Chairman Paut A. Roberts, Secretary The same overture was received from: (3-142) The following Michigan pastors: W. J. Geffert, N. E. Borchardt, Wilton Fluegge, Henry Moehring, Frank Pies, J. M. Rauf, A. H. A. Loeber, Paul Gold, C. Trosien.