# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S556
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP

With respect to his brother, whose conscience
may not judge in all such matters as does his own,
let every Christian observe the instruction of the
same apostle, “Why do you pass judgment on your
brother? Or, why do you despise your brother?
For we shall all stand before the judgment seat
of God... . So each of us shall give account of
himself to God” (Rom. 14:10, 12).

6. It will be remembered that THEOLOGY OF FELLOW-
sip, Part II, closes with a discussion of churchly
practice as a criterion of church fellowship, and
of the difficulties experienced internally by the
Synodical Conference in connection with the ap-
plication of this criterion.*}

Our Synod will be well advised to retain the
principle that Scriptural practice is important for
church fellowship. When ecclesiastical practice is
in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran Con-
fessions, the church is edified. On the other hand,
when ecclesiastical practice constitutes a demon-
strable denial of the Gospel, the work of the
church is undermined. However, Christians ought
not apply this principle legalistically or employ
doubtful logic and labored conclusions to prove
that a certain practice is against the Gospel. In
the matter of churchly practice the individual con-
gregation should be guided by the same considera-
tions as are set forth under point 5 above, on the
basis of Rom. 14:5, 10, 12, 23.

Conclusion

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
now submits this THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part I, I,
and III, to The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod for
reference and guidance.

May our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved the church,
and gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:25), protect and bless
His church in all the world: may He Himself guide His
children everywhere into all truth, and cleanse the
church of all heresy and schism. May He bless also the
church as it exists in The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod and in the synods in fellowship with it. May He
grant us grace to proclaim His Word with boldness and
with power and to exhort with all longsuffering and doc-
trine (2Tim. 4:2); to love the brotherhood (1 Peter
2:17): to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15); to walk
worthy of the vocation wherewith we have been called,
with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, for-
bearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, for there is one
body and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope
of our calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in us all (Eph. 4:1-6).

Tu. F. NickeL, Chairman
Hergert J. A. Bouman, Secretary

on
L
ue

FOOTNOTES

1 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Regular Convention,
St. Paul, 1956, p. 550.

2 Theology of Fellowship, Preamble.
31 John 1:3; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 4:11, 12.

4 Gerhard, Loci Theologici, ed. Preuss, Berlin 1863, I,
202, 216; V, 355.

5 At the Colloquy at Ratisbon in 1602 Lutherans and
Roman Catholics had taken turns with the opening prayers.
(Cf. Theology of Fellowship, Part II, Footnote 46.) It ap-
pears that at Thorn the Lutheran spokesmen, among them
Huelsemann and Calov, expected that the same arrangement
would prevail. Upon arrival, however, they found that the
Roman Catholics insisted that all opening services were to
be conducted by Roman Catholics. The result was that the
Lutherans refused to attend the opening services, and
prayed instead in a private meeting of their own. In his
Historica Syncretistica (1682) Abraham Calov not only gives
valuable information and documents relating to the Colloquy
of Thorn but also about the whole syncretistic controversy
which developed in connection with the union efforts spear-
headed by Georg Calixt. Calov gives among others these
reasons advanced by the Lutherans why they could not yield
to the Roman Catholic demands in the matter of the prayers:

1. The apostle forbids that anyone should have fellowship with
darkness and the spiritual Babylon. 2 Cor.6; Rev. 18.

2. There is nothing in the royal invitation (the colloquy had
been called by the king of Poland) about joint prayers and
ceremonies; rather that those who had left Roman Catholic-
ism should be distinct and separate.

3. The royal invitation of Dec. 1, 1644, gives sacred guarantees
that charity should be preserved among all. But parity is
violated if we are hindered from reciting our own prayers
and called, as it were, before a tribunal, with the prayers
of the Roman Catholics thrust upon us.

4, The colloquy is to be charitable; but it is a contradiction
of charity to forbid those who have equal rights to conduct
prayers with their fellows, to take away from them the
liberty to pray in public; if we were to condescend to pray
with the Roman Catholic gentlemen, we should sin against
charity, by which we should give offense to the weak.

om, 16.

5, Liberty has been granted three provinces of greater Prussia
in the exercise of religion, according to the teachings of
Holy Scripture and the Unaltered Augsburg Confession; why
should there not also be liberty of reciting prayers, as in
our churches so also in a hall and in a public act of con-
ession.

6. It militates against our protestation, in the preliminary
conditions, which the Roman Catholic part has already con-
rmed....

7. It militates against our instructions, in which we are com-
manded to hold firmly and to defend the equality of our
side.

8. It militates against our conscience, which forbids to harm
the neighbor; our neighbor, who is related to our faith,
would be harmed if we were to pray together with Roman

atholics.

9. We have been instructed to procure and do all things which
could be conducive to avoiding schisms in our churches, and
establish harmony instead, and to nourish harmony with
the churches which are outside [our realm}, with which we
are joined in fellowship of faith. But agreeing to pray
{jointly] in public, will give cause for schism, disturb har-
mony, offend the churches without, who will be surprised
that we should be willing to have the liberty of praying
taken away from us.

10. We confess Christ also in our prayers, therefore he who
forbids us these, takes away from us the liberty of con-
fessing Christ.

11. Our instructions prohibit us from accepting from the Roman
Catholics even so much as the manner of conducting the
colloquy; much less will it be right to accept from them
the manner of praying.

12. A charitable colloquy ought not to have the power of
a synod, or the power to compel. But to compel the party
of the Augsburg Confession and to forbid them prayer in
public, what, I ask, is this if not to exercise the power of
a synod against it?

There follow additional reasons why the Lutherans be-
lieved they could not consent to pray with the Roman Catholic
party. The Scriptures referred to are 2 Cor. 6:14-18 (Rev.
18); and Romans 16:17, 18.

In Part V of the second preliminary chapter to the same
book, Historica Syncretistica, which he superscribes,
“Wahrer, Gott wohlgefaelliger Kirchenfriede muss auf Got-~
tes Wort gegruendet, und der goettlichen Wahrheit in den
Stuecken unsers Glaubens nicht entgegen sein,” (True God-