# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S186
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

186 CHURCH RELATIONS

6. Wuereas, Thus judged, unity and consensus does
not in fact exist between The ALC and LCMS; there-
fore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod in its convention at Denver, July 11—19, repu-
diate Resolution 3-23 of the convention of 1967; and be
it further

Resolved, To decline to establish altar and pulpit fel-
lowship with The American Lutheran Church until such
time as true consensus and unity of both doctrine and

ractice be established.
PRACINEE DE ESADUSNCE- IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH

Bremen, Kans.
MicuaeL M. Breen, Secretary

(3-237)

To Rescind Res. 3-23 and Offer
“Common Confession” as Basis
for Lutheran Unity

The Grace Lutheran Church (LCMS) of Lancaster.
Calif., is unconditionally opposed to a declaration of
altar and pulpit fellowship with The American Lutheran
Church at this time.

Shortly after Resolution 3-23 of the New York con-
vention was brought to our attention, our pastor took
the leadership to inform us historically, logically, and
theologically concerning the implications involved in
such a venture. We studied a host of documents related
to this question dating back to “The Common Confes-
sion.” We seriously studied the Augsburg Confession
during the entire Trinity Season of 1967. We followed
the arguments pro and con as presented in the Lutheran
Witness and other Lutheran journals. We conducted
seminars and study groups. We find the following dis-
turbing discrepancies to exist to which we cannot con-
sent. They are:

1. The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod did not
officially accept the “Joint Statement and Declaration”
of the official representatives of the LCMS and The ALC
as a confessional (positional) statement, which accord-
ing to the LCMS Constitution (Art. II — Confession)
it must first do before it is placed in the position it holds
in Resolution 3-23. Our Synod’s Constitution holds that
Art. VII of the Augsburg Confession is but one singular
doctrine (See Apology) of many set forth in the Book
of Concord, of which entire body of doctrine there
must be unconditional acceptance before altar and pul-
pit fellowship is accepted according to the Synod’s
Constitution. We hold that Art. VII of the Augsburg
Confession is here misapplied.

2. The officials of the Synod followed the direction of
Resolution 3-23 very well. They “promot[ed] the widest
possible mutual recognition of the [opinion] of the
doctrinal consensus.” We did some searching of our
own and discovered that wide disagreement in doctrine
exists between some pastors within The ALC. We did
this on a sampling of doctrines and only in our District.
We found that some pastors of The ALC deny the in-

fallibility of Scripture as the only source of absolute
propositional truth, the virgin birth of Christ, original
sin, etc. We also discovered that some pastors in The
ALC are not ready to accept altar and pulpit fellowship
with us. We believe that if altar and pulpit fellowship
is declared with The ALC, our entire time-honored
system of “colloquies for entrance into the ministry of
the LCMS” is no longer valid and our congregations
could not be guaranteed a confessionally and doctrinally
sound pastor under the proposed “pastoral exchange”
fellowship.

3. We are agreed that in the light of the unionistic
practices of some pastors and congregations of The ALC,
altar and pulpit fellowship with them would erase Art.
III, Objects, par. 1 —

The conservation and promotion of the unity of the true
faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and a united defense
against schism and sectarianism (Rom. 16: 17) —

of our Synod’s Constitution. (See Art. VI, 2):

2. Renunciation of 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;

c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary ac-
tivities.

4. We are appreciative of the three essays presented
to us for study concerning the matter of fellowship.
However, we believe that these are only studies, good
as they are, and not joint confessional (positional) dec-
larations that bind each other's consciences to a con-
fessional status. We believe also that if such studies
will continue to be presented to laymen in the structure
they are presented (language and concepts) to help
solve problems, our Synod will fast become a “theolo-
gians’ church.” This is also in disagreement with the
Synod’s historic practice. (See the signatures to the
Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord.)

5. We believe that the officials of the Synod should
not have pressed under the adoption of Resolution 3-23
at New York in 1967 because of the unconstitutionality
of its approach, because all officials and or members of
the Synod are first bound to the Constitution and the
directives it gives on the subject of altar and pulpit
fellowship.

6. We believe that the present ALC broke trust with
the LCMS, as the former ALC did during past delib-
erations on the “Common Confession,” by declaring
altar and pulpit fellowship with the Lutheran Church
in America, a church body that never had official doc-
trinal studies with the LCMS. Although we find no
reasons to interfere with the decisions of other church
groups, we feel that this convention ought at least
to officially express disappointment to The ALC for
their actions.

7. Finally, we are assured, after our studies, that the
New York convention placed the President of the Synod
and other synodical officials in an unwarranted, awk-
ward position of leadership by a resolution that had no