# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S50
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNODICAL REPORTS 49

there. (For this reason Lutherans do not proselytize active mem-
bers of these churches.) The presence of the Gospel in these
churches, however, does not negate their false and misleading
proclamation. Practicing church fellowship with them would com-
promise our proclamation of the Gospel. Their false teachings sadly
separate us at the altar and in the pulpit from well-meaning Chris-
tians in these churches.

We do not presume to pass judgment on whether or not indi-
vidual false teachers have saving faith. Nevertheless, their false
teachings exclude them from external fellowship with churches that
hold to the apostolic teachings of the New Testament. First-cen-
tury apostolic churches would hardly have communed with those
who persistently distorted the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:6—-9).

The Lutheran Confessions hold that all doctrine must be derived
from the Scriptures. These Confessions understand Christian doc-
trine not in a minimal sense, i.e., a bare message of forgiveness,
but as the entire Christian faith summarized in the articles of faith.
The Formula of Concord summarizes the Lutheran basis for church
fellowship:

Churches will not condemn each other because of a difference in cer-
emonies, when in Christian liberty one uses fewer or more of them, as
long as they are otherwise agreed in docirine and all its articles and are
also agreed concerning the right use of the holy sacraments. (SD X 31).
Thus the Book of Concord comprises the Lutheran church’s

solemn and official confession of the pure Gospel and Christ’s
Sacraments under the norm of the Holy Scriptures and provides the
basis for church fellowship.

The LCMS from its beginning has been committed to avoiding
unionism, that is, practicing church fellowship together with those
with whom we were not united in doctrine. One of the conditions
of membership in the LCMS was and remains the following:

Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such
as:

a. Serving congregalions 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 activities.

(Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missoun Synod, Art. VI 2)

Iff. Summary of Responses

District convention delegates submitted a variety of responses.
While the majority approved of The Lutheran Understanding of
Church Fellowship, others detailed specific problems. Style was a
problem for some. They found the document’s vocabulary and ar-
guments difficult to understand and wanted practical problems ad-
dressed in a more popular style. The document’s technical, often
lengthy endnotes gave some the impression that our main concern
is maintaining LCMS traditions. Others faulted the document for
not being more detailed in biblical and confessional argumentation.
These opposite reactions may be due to a misunderstanding of the
document's nature and purpose. The President and CTCR were
aware that some might find it unnecessarily complex and that oth-
ers might prefer a more scholarly document. Actually, both con-
cerns were in view. An abridged version was written to introduce
the main document whose text was made as straightforward as pos-
sible. Detailed argumentation and documentation were placed into
the endnotes.

Many responded to the document’s content. A majority af-
firmed the LCMS position on church fellowship that it set forth.
They found it scriptural and confessional and wanted the LCMS to
maintain its historic position. Some also wanted the LCMS lead-
ers to hold accountable members who have openly violated the syn-
odical position. These respondents lamented that pastors and con-
gregations who hold to Lutheran practice are sometimes accused
of being deficient in Christian love and labeled legalistic. A related

concern was the difficulty of explaining in an appealing way why
we are who we are and why we do what we do.

Some objected to the document’s methods of interpreting the
Scriptures and Confessions. A typical question was “Are the cen-
turies-old texts of the Scriptures and Confessions directly applica-
ble to our modern denominational situation?” To others the docu-
ment appeared to begin with predetermined conclusions which
were then supported by proof-texts without adequate argumenta-
tion. Some claimed that scriptural warnings against false prophets
were actually directed against non-Christians, not erring Christians.
This way of citing the Bible, they maintain, gives members of other
denominations the impression that we do not even regard them as
Christians.

Others went further and disagreed with LCMS church fellow-
ship practices which they said were narrower than the Confessions
intended or allowed. Some specifically mentioned Communion,
while others asked how much agreement is necessary for churches
to be in fellowship. Some claimed that our fellowship practice is
an obstacle in bringing the Gospel to others. While generally ac-
cepting the Synod’s position, some feel that pastors should be free
to decide in emergency situations whether or not to participate in
any joint worship without being branded as dissenters. They op-
pose indiscriminate fellowship practices, but they do not want to
be seen as separatistic in suggesting that members of other
churches are not Christians. [mportant for them is that the LCMS
continue to study its fellowship principles and acquire more infor-
mation about its doctrinal differences with other churches.

IV. General Comments on the Responses
A. The Current Cultural Context

In our discussions of church fellowship we must take into ac-
count how our culture affects our patterns of thinking. Contempo-
rary attitudes toward the nature and role of truth differ from those
of a generation or two ago. This has enormous implications for our
common commitment to church fellowship principles and prac-
tices. To illustrate some of the contemporary challenges to truth
claims, consider the following response: “Theologians really need
to experience what is happening throughout the Synod. | person-
ally don’t feel my Lutheran faith is threatened by fellowship with
other churches. In fact it is strengthened.” This response reflects
three elements of our culture.

First, deeply rooted in American culture is that each person
places incredible confidence in himself/herself. In modern jargon,
“I know as much as and am as capable as anyone else.” Individu-
alism causes people to be locked into private virtual realities de-
fined by their own opinions, preferences, and experiences. When
someone says that he/she does not “feel” the Lutheran faith is
threatened by church fellowship with non-Lutheran Christians,
he/she may be making his/her personal opinion and not the faith of
the Lutheran church the basis for what is true. In that case religious
teachings are regarded as no more than individual opinions. Notice
that the response quoted above uses individualistic language: “I
personally don’t feel my Lutheran faith is threatened.”

When each person determines what is true for him/her, seeking
to find agreement on common meanings and ideas is futile. In this
climate many construct an eclectic spirituality for themselves by
taking elements from widely differing and even opposing systems
of belief and philosophy. Notice that the response quoted above
speaks of faith being “strengthened” by fellowship with “other
churches,” presumably churches with differing systems of belief.
This prevalent syncretism is our culture’s second challenge. LCMS
pastors know that some of their members tolerate views that are di-
ametrically opposed to central biblical teachings. Often heard is
“It’s all a matter of individual interpretation.” The unionism and
syncretism which is disavowed in the LCMS constitution is now
the majority opinion in some circles of our society.

2001 Convention Workbook