# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S340
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

340

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Principles for Cooperation in Externals with Theological Integrity (2010 Res. 3-03)
Introduction
This document responds to an assignment given to the CTCR by the Synod at its 2010
convention. 2010 Res. 3-03 commends and liberally quotes from a March 2010 document titled
“Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions” (“Theological Implications”), prepared
by a task force appointed by the President of Synod. 2010 Res. 3-03 resolves, “That, in keeping
with the basic principles set forth in the task force statement, cooperation in externals with other
churches, including the ELCA, continue with theological integrity.”1
Res. 3-03 also requires the development of “more in-depth theological criteria for assessing
cooperative endeavors, determining what would necessitate termination of such cooperative
efforts” and assigns to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) that
responsibility, “in consultation with the Praesidium and other entities and individuals as
needed.”2 The Praesidium, working with the CTCR, is then given the task to “assess the current
state of cooperation in externals” and to issue “a full report of criteria for ongoing assessment of
the same by July 13, 2011.”3
	
  

Such principles are of pressing concern specifically to Recognized Service Organizations that are
engaged in such cooperative work, both in terms of their internal working relationships and of
their accountability to the LCMS. While this document sets forth general principles, the urgency
in responding according to the timetable of the process set forth in Res 3-03 has specific
reference to such relationships.
Background4
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) recognizes some 125 or more Recognized
Service Organizations (RSO) which involve Synod, its districts, or congregations in some form
of “service” or mercy ministry, including such things as nursing homes and senior care, adoption
agencies, housing for low-income seniors, food banks, international relief, immigration and
refugee services, and so forth. In addition, the Synod is involved in six different “cooperative
agencies,” including Lutheran Disaster Response, Lutheran Educational Conference of North
America, Lutheran Film Associates, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Lutheran
Services in America, and Lutheran World Relief.5 Not only these cooperative agencies, but also
many RSO’s involve cooperation with other church bodies or entities outside the Synod. The
majority of these endeavors involve cooperation on some level between the LCMS and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). The issue of “cooperation in externals” with
the ELCA has come to a head because of the sexuality decisions made by the ELCA at its 2009

Assembly, which give stark evidence of the deep theological divisions between the LCMS and
the ELCA.
Before we consider the matter of principles for cooperation in externals with theological
integrity, it is important to clarify that an RSO does not necessarily involve cooperation between
the Synod (or one of its entities) and another church or church body. An RSO is an organization,
recognized by the Synod, which
while independent of the Synod, fosters the mission and ministry of the church, engages
in program activity that is in harmony with the programs of the boards of the Synod, and
respects and does not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod.6
In other words, an RSO is devoted to a purpose which the Synod can endorse and support
because its activities are in harmony and consistent with Synod’s doctrine and practice. Note that
the definition of an RSO allows for it to be a cooperative agency. An RSO may also be wholly
owned, managed, and staffed by LCMS people and involve no cooperative arrangement with
another church body.
It should be stated that such “wholly LCMS” RSO’s are ideal in many ways. First, in the allimportant question of mission, such RSO’s can fully be involved in and supportive of Gospel
outreach in addition to whatever particular service focus they may have. Second, they enable
Synod’s entire theological understanding to serve as undergirding for the work they are doing.
Third, they will not require the careful “balancing” or negotiating process that a cooperative
RSO does when it comes to making decisions about management and leadership, setting policies,
choosing staff, and so forth.
However, most of Synod’s RSO’s are cooperative in nature. They have been endorsed by the
Synod because of the conviction that the work they do is pleasing to God and meets genuine
human needs that we could not otherwise as effectively address. Yet, questions and concerns
have risen as to if or whether Synod involvement in such endeavors may also involve us in work
with the ELCA that would compromise our doctrine. As noted above, the immediate cause for
this concern is action taken by the ELCA when it met in Churchwide Assembly in August, 2009.
Among its decisions it resolved to recognize “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous,
same-gender relationships” as morally acceptable and removed any denominational restriction of
the eligibility for ordination of individuals in such relationships.7
The ELCA decisions regarding human sexuality have clearly provided a tipping point, leading
people to question any joint work with the ELCA. A legitimate concern is expressed over
activities that might confuse the LCMS with the ELCA. In addition, the validity of the concept of
“cooperation in externals” is also open to question by many. A question arises: Can we remain
faithful in our confession before the world when we cooperate with another church body that has
openly repudiated critical aspects of that confession?

1

Res. 3-03, second resolved. (The LCMS, Convention Proceedings 2010, 115).
Ibid., 116 (fourth resolved).
Ibid. (fifth resolved).
The Appendix provides additional background information regarding cooperation in externals.
5
Please note that our primary focus herein is on the work of cooperative agencies and Recognized Service
Organizations, and not on singular, one-time responses to a particular issue or crisis in which the Synod or one of its
entities may issue a joint statement or participate in a widespread immediate relief effort.
2
3
4

6

Bylaw 6.2.1, 2007 Handbook: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, p. 200.
Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies, the ELCA, page 5, available online at http://www.elca.org/
What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality/Report-and-Recommendation.aspx. The
Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies was adopted by the Churchwide Assembly.

7

1

2

In “Theological Implications,” the Synod has again reaffirmed a longstanding and important
distinction between cooperation in externals and communion in sacred things.8 Rather than
viewing cooperative work with other churches as a first step toward altar and pulpit fellowship or
as necessitating full doctrinal agreement, the Synod seeks to maintain a clear distinction between
the two concepts so that the cooperation in externals does not imply communion in sacred things
in any way. It has also acknowledged two critical principles with regard to cooperation in
externals: (1) that it is often appropriate to engage in cooperative work with another church
body or group of Christians, and (2) that such cooperative work may not be done at the expense
of doctrinal integrity.

reductionism. Christians and the “household of faith” are obligated to show mercy and to care for
others, even where needs are purely “external” or physical (Rom 12:20; Gal 6:10). Scripture and
the Lutheran Confessions also remind us that such works are motivated by faith, and do not
“merit justification before God.”12 Yet, they are commanded and necessary nonetheless.13 Mercy
and love, as defined by the eternal Law of God and made clear in the Decalogue, are the life of
faith at work in the world.

The title of Resolution 3-03 and the quoted resolve indicate the importance of clear distinctions.
Any cooperative work with others must be done “with theological integrity.” The purpose of a
sharp, clear distinction between cooperation in externals and communion in sacred things is to
prevent any cooperative relationships from compromising the purity of the Gospel or
undermining the church’s proper work of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments
of Christ. However, it is sometimes difficult or even impossible to draw the line sharply between
“externals” and “sacred things.” One obvious example is a senior care facility which has a
chaplain on staff.
Basic Principles
The “basic principles” referred to in 2010 Res. 3-03 are important to recall as the starting point
for the CTCR’s task. The Convention affirmed them and also charged the CTCR to work on
further, more “in-depth theological criteria for assessing cooperative endeavors.”9 “Theological
Implications” includes a quotation from Theology of Fellowship, adopted by the Synod in 1967.
It may be helpful to examine more closely that quotation as summarizing the most important
“basic principle” in this matter.
Our Synod should clearly recognize that, in cases of necessary work on the local,
national, or international level, where the faith and confession of the church are not
compromised, and where it appears essential that the churches of various denominations
should cooperate or at least not work at cross purposes, our churches ought to cooperate
willingly to the extent that the Word of God and conscience will allow.10
Note that Theology of Fellowship refers to “necessary work” and to cooperation that “appears
essential.” The term “necessary” brings to mind Article VI of the Augsburg Confession (AC):
“Our churches also teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits and that it is necessary
to do the good works commanded by God.”11 This reminds us that the kind of “externals” in
view are not somehow unimportant or optional even though they do not involve proclaiming the
Gospel and administering Christ’s sacraments. That would amount to some form of Gospel

This emphasis on “necessary” work indicates that we are not referring to matters of adiaphora.
Our church cooperates with other churches and other organizations in such adiaphora as
purchasing agreements, insurance companies, investment firms, and so forth. Such agreements—
to the extent that they are purely “indifferent matters”—are not at issue. In addition, it should be
clear that there is no controversy regarding cooperation in externals with a church with whom we
are also in altar/pulpit fellowship.
That which God commands is “necessary.” The ways that works of mercy are promoted and
organized, however, will vary according to circumstances. Showing mercy to those in need is not
optional, it is commanded. “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I
command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in
your land'” (Deut 15:11). What is commanded is both necessary and essential to the work of the
church.
The church will always preach and teach the Gospel. It will always encourage a life of good
works according to one’s individual vocation.14 But the church should also organize its efforts in
this goal of obedience to God’s commands for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. So the
early church organized care for widows and orphans (Acts 6:1ff.) and offerings were collected
for the care of the poor in Jerusalem during a time of catastrophe (1 Cor 16:1ff., Gal 2:10). In the
case of Acts 6, it is noteworthy that while priority is clearly given to the ministry of prayer and
the Word of God (vv. 2, 4), the care of widows and orphans is not something that can be ignored.
In commenting on Acts 6, Chrysostom notes that both care for the needy and proclamation of the
Word of God are necessary, but the latter ought always to be the higher priority: “the needful
must give precedence to the more needful.”15
That leads to another aspect of cooperative work, namely, that it is work that is done better
cooperatively than it would be if it were done separately. Or, in other words, that working
cooperatively prevents working at “cross-purposes.” This is a reminder that in many
circumstances it is “essential,” at the very least, to communicate effectively with other churches
regarding works of mercy to prevent confusion and to allow more efficiency. For example, in the
case of a natural catastrophe, it would be counter-productive for all the different aid
organizations to cluster in one location when there are needs in other areas that are unmet.

8

The Latin phrases cooperatio in externis and communio in sacris are often used.
The case of military chaplaincy is particularly thorny. It is separate from this question because it involves
communio in sacris by definition. Moreover, it involves governmental policies and procedures and involved
endorsement procedures. It therefore requires its own, discrete analysis in cooperation with personnel from ministry
to armed forces.
10
CTCR, Theology of Fellowship (1965), 28. In the online version of the report at www.lcms.org/ctcr, the page
number is 43.
11
Tappert, Theodore G. The Book of Concord (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 31.
9

3

2013 Convention Workbook

12
Ibid.
13
E.g., AAC IV 122ff. (KW 140-149) and the scriptural citations within. See also FC SD VI and its scriptural
citations (KW 587-591). Cooperative work is in the realm of the bene esse, not the esse, of the church.
14
On the importance of this understanding in Luther, see George W. Forell, Faith Active in Love: An Investigation
of the Principles Underlying Luther’s Social Ethics (New York: The American Press, 1954).
15
Emphasis added. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament V Acts, Francis Martin, ed.,
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 70.

4