# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S442 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 442 OTHER PERTINENT DOCUMENTS 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 doctrine 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 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 activities. (Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Art. VI 2) II. 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, 2004 Convention Workbook 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. Important 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- Tary 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 moder jargon, “IT 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 “Tt’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. Related to the second factor is the third: distinctions between people and even between ideas and teachings no longer matter. A noted professor pointed out that first-year college students enrolling at the university already had a relative view of truth. All views have equal claims to the truth. The only absolute is that there are no ab- solutes. This kind of thinking reflects the religious views of a ma- jority of people today in our culture. People recognize that churches differ from one another but are reluctant to say that one church is right and another wrong. Notice that the response quoted above speaks of “other churches” without making any judgment about whether they are orthodox or heterodox. In this environment the LCMS view on church fellowship often seems to be out of touch with reality, even among its own mem- bership.