# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S368
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

368 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

teaching.’ It might be said, for instance, that eating and drinking
the Supper with those who have joined themselves to a different
confession is “unfitting” or “inconsistent” with the character of the
Eucharist.

This emphasis upon doctrinal agreement among those who
commune together flows from two propositions. First, it assumes
that differing confessions prevent churches from enjoying altar fel-
lowship. Second, it assumes that Christians are not to be seen
merely as “individuals,” but also as “confessors”™ of the doctrine of
their own church body. Discussion of each of these two proposi-
tions follows.

No Difference of Confession at the Same Altar

We have seen in the first section of this study that the New Tes-
tament takes a stern approach to heterodoxy. The Confessions also
spcak clearly about the dangers of such false teaching and the need
to avoid it. The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, for
example, warns against “becoming participants in the impious doc-
trines, blasphemies, and unjust cruelties of the pope” (Treatise, 41;
Tappert, 327) and then comments:

To dissent from the consensus of so many nations and to be called

schismatics is a serious matier. But divine authority commands us all

not to be associated with and not to support impiety and unjust cruelty.

Consequently our consciences are sufficiently excused. The errors of

the pope's kingdom are manifest. . . . (Treatise, 42; Tappert, 328)

The Treatise then lists a number of these errors, including the
profanations of Masses, the Roman Catholic doctrine of repen-
tance, the teaching concerning sin, and papal usurpation of ecclesi-
astical power (Treatise, 43-59; Tappert 328-30). The Formula of
Concord recalls and endorses this teaching in the Solid Declara-
tion’s “Summary Formulation”:

In these articles [adopted at Smalcald in 1537] the doctrine of the cited

Augsburg Confession is repeated, several articles are further explained

on the basis of God’s Word, and in addition the grounds and reasons

are set forth al necessary length for renouncing the papistic errors and
idolatries, for having no communion with the papists, and for neither
expecting nor planning to come to an understanding with the pope about

these matters. (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 7; Tappert, 505)

Over against the groups whose confession denied the real pres-
ence in the Sacrament (the so-called “Sacramentarians’’). the For-
mula of Concord quotes Luther approvingly as follows:

Shortly before his death, in his last confession, he [Luther] repeated his

faith in this article {regarding the Lord’s Supper] with great fervor and

wrote as follows: “I reckon them all as belonging together (that is, as

Sacramentarians and enthusiasts), for that is what they are who will not

believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is his true, natural body,

which the godless or Judas receive orally as well as St. Peter and all the
saints. Whoever, I say, will not believe this, will please let me alone
and expect no fellowship from me. This is final.” (FC SD VII, 33; Tap-

pert, 575)

Finally, Article XII of the Solid Declaration titled “Other Fac-
tions and Sects Which Never Accepted the Augsburg Confession”
states regarding such groups*” that

We have not been able to refrain from witnessing publicly before all

Christendom that we have no part or share in their errors, be they few or

many, and that on the contrary we reject and condemn all these errors as

wrong, heretical, and contrary to our Christian and biblically-based

Augsburg Confession. (FC SD XIL, 8; Tappert, 633)

Strong words, indeed. Yet they testify to the Confessions’ belief
that false doctrine is a dangerous cancer that must be cured, and if
not cured, avoided. Differing church confessions render common
eucharistic fellowship impossible. A recent and tragic contrast to
this conviction of the Lutheran Confessions is the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America’s decision in 1997 and 1999, respec-
tively, to establish full altar and pulpit fellowship with Reformed
church bodies and with the Episcopal Church. The ELCA has des-
ignated the differences between Lutheran and Reformed teaching
on the Eucharist as “complementary” and as an “acceptable diver-

2001 Convention Workbook

sity.” This contradicts, in the most dramatic way possible, the ap-
proach of the Lutheran Confessions.*'

“Christians as Confessors”

The second proposition that undergirds the practice of with-
holding communion fellowship when doctrinal unity does not exist
among those who commune is this: Christians are not to be seen
merely as “individuals” but also as “confessors” of the doctrine of
their own church body. In a time of rampant individualism when
people “do their own thing” even when joining a church, this no-
tion seems precarious at best to some. It also must be readily admit-
ted that people often join a denomination for reasons other than its
doctrine. Indeed, the very notion of “joining a denomination” is
probably not even present in the minds of some church members,
especially those who freely “church hop” from one to the other. Is it
possible in such a context to maintain the idea that individual Chris-
tians represent and “confess” the doctrine of their church body?

It is not only possible; it is necessary. If the church ceases to in-
sist that individuals represent the public confession of their church
body, at least five dangers immediately present themselves.

In the first place, the current crosion of the importance of doc-
trine would be accelerated to an alarming extent. Many voices in
our present context assert that all truth is relative and that all per-
spectives are equally valid. Standing against the culture, Christ’s
church must hold firmly to the truth that doctrine—propositional
truth—will be either true and good, or false and evil. Many pco-
ple, including members of our own congregations, will be baffled
by this classic approach. When we encounter these reactions. we
must be prepared to explain ourselves in winsome and patient
ways. We must also continue to hold high the standards for our
own catechetical instruction of doctrine. Abbreviated programs of
instruction, either for young people or for adults, that neglect the
teaching of Lutheran doctrine will only accelerate the slide into an
indifference to God’s revealed truth in Holy Scripture.

In the second place, if the doctrinal confession of one’s own
church body can be ignored, then it must follow that heterodoxy
poses no danger to the spiritual lives of Christians. The questton
stated directly is this: Does tt matter, or does it not matter, that a
church’s confession proclaims that the Bible is only “a faithful wit-
ness” to the truth and is not completely inspired and inerrant, or
that the Lord’s Supper does not offer the true body and blood of
Christ, or that the good works of Christians attain merit before God.
or that baptism is merely an outward “symbol!” of an inner reality?
In the sixteenth century the three major theological “camps” were
the Lutherans, the Reformed, and the church of Rome. Major dif-
ferences in confession separated these three camps, and still sepa-
rate them today.

Perhaps the most difficult issue for the LCMS today is its rela-
tionship with the ELCA. But the recent actions of the ELCA in es-
tablishing full communion with the Reformed and the Episco-
palians on the one hand, and in endorsing the Joint Declaration on
the Doctrine of Justification with Rome on the other hand, have
made our relationship with the ELCA both more sorrowful and
more obvious.” We must insist that false doctrine does matter, be-
cause ultimately it turns sinners away from Christ alone and from
the means by and through which He and His benefits may with cer-
tainty be found.

In the third place. if individual church members are not seen as
“confessors” of their church body’s doctrine, then the concept of
church membership is watered down to the point of meaningless-
ness. The rationale for any catechesis in the traditional sense of the
term vanishes, and there emerges a resounding contradiction be-
tween our own confirmation process and the attitude with which
we view members of other denominations. Indeed, there would be
no theological rejoinder possible to a member of an adult member-
ship class in one of our churches who publiely rejected (for exam-