LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 147

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 147

application of Biblical teaching... this is something, neverthe-
less, that the fellowship must be striving for continually.”

A response from an aduit Bible class began by stating that
the term ‘‘fellowship” must be restricted to membership in the
one holy Christian church. According to this definition, people
are either “in fellowship” or “out of fellowship” and this
relationship is not something which a church body can
“establish.” Only faith in Christ, not doctrinal agreement
(which is impossible because of human imperfections), is the
criterion for expressing the unity Christians have in the body
of Christ. Thus, when denominations break off fellowship with
other churches, they are “declaring that they are not in
fellowship with God,” said one respondent. Since congrega-
tions are in a better positon to make judgments about the faith
and doctrine of other Christians, decisions regarding the
expression of unity in Christ’s body should be made only on the
local level.

A pastor, in an individual response, while arguing for the
retention of the concept of “altar and pulpit fellowship,”
further suggested: (1) Altar fellowship ought to be more
restricted than pulpit fellowship. While it may be possible on
special occasions to invite a guest speaker who is not in
complete doctrinal agreement to bring a particular message,
yet the Synod should practice close Communion and not admit
to the Lord’s Table those who have not repented of their sins of
false teaching. (2) Not every act of participation with others
automatically involves compromise or agreement with error;
decisions with respect to expressions of fellowship with hetero-
dox church bodies should be determined after a careful con-
sideration of the witness such expression gives to those whoerr
as well as those in one’s own church body. (3) Decisions in this
area should be informed by the Biblical principle “to whom
much is given much is required.” For example, “the doctrinal
ignorance of a layman should not be judged with the same
degree of severity as the persistent adherence to a false doctrine
by a seminary professor.” There is greater reason for denying
the Sacrament to a pastor of a church body not in fellowship
with us than ‘denying it to the grandmother who came from
Europe to visit, is of the Reformed tradition, but believes in
Christ and the Real Presence in the Sacrament.”

Stressing the importance of achieving doctrinal consensus
as a “basis for recognizing persons or even groups as believers
or churches,” a congregation suggested five guidelines for the
Synod with respect to the practice of altar fellowship: (1) Great
vigilance should be exercised in the theological training and
certification of candidates for the holy ministry: (2) the
necessity of doctrinal supervision; (3) pastors, District Presi-
dents, theological professors, and doctrinal commissions
should keep the members of the Synod informed of ‘current
deviations from the Gospel”; (4) synodical conventions should
function, not to declare church fellowship, but rather “should
go on record as condemning particular false teachings or un-
Scriptural practices taught or tolerated in these bodies”; (5) ‘It
should remain in the sphere of the individual congregation
whether to commune guests from synods which have thus been
marked as teaching or tolerating false teaching.”

A Circuit pastors conference summarized their rationale for
the principle that “the local congregation and individual
Christian is in the best position to demonstrate fellowship.” On
the assumption that Christians have fellowship “regardless of
whether church bodies establish relationships or not,” this
conference rejected the practice of denominational declara-
tions of fellowship, stating that while “‘some relationships may
be best established by churches” on the church-body level, the
Scriptures do not support the conclusion that “all activities
that demonstrate our unity in Christ should be determined by
church bodies.” It must be recognized, this response stated,
that “it must border on false doctrine to believe that sinful
human beings can know the Gospel of Christ purely and can
communicate that Gospel of Christ purely” and that ‘there is
fellowship without doctrinal unity.”” Individual Christians
have both the right and perhaps the obligation to practice (give
manifestation to a belief) on an individual basis the fellowship
they have in Chnist.”’

b. Report on the ‘Nature and Implications of the Concept of
Fellowship”

The assignment “to prepare a comprehensive study and
report on the nature and implications of the concept of
fellowship” was given to the CTCR by the 1977 convention of
the Synod (1977 Res. 3-02A “To Declare a State of ‘Fellowship
in Protest’ with the ALC’’). The Synod. noting in reference to its
discussions with the ALC that “there is considerable evidence
of doctrinal disagreement and confusion in understanding the
nature and implications of the concept of fellowship itself.”
asked the CTCR to disseminate this report throughout the
Synod for widespread study prior to the 1979 convention, when
the Synod would reconsider its relationship to the ALC.

Following the 1977 convention, the commission took this
assignment into account as it participated in the ‘That We
May Grow” program (initiated by the Synod in 1975 Res. 3-01
“To Seek Unity’) by discussing “The Formula for Concord” ata
theologians convocation in November 1977 and at 55 "Formula
for Concord” conferences throughout the Synod in 1978. The
discussions on what the Lutheran Confessions have to say
about concord in the church revealed considerable confusion
within the Synod on the question of fellowship. Moreover. the
request was repeatedly voiced in these conferences that the
Synod should undertake a thorough study of what the Scrip-
tures teach concerning fellowship.

As aresult of its participation in the “Formula for Concord”
conferences, the CTCR decided in late spring 1978 that, rather
than proceed immediately with the completion of its assign-
ment to prepare the comprehensive study and report on
fellowship called for by the 1977 convention, it should first
respond to the widespread request for a Bible study on fellow-
ship. Acting upon the CTCR’s recommendation that the Synod
remain ina state of fellowship in protest with the ALC and that
the members of the Synod be encouraged “‘to participate in the
Bible studies to be shared with the Synod by the CTCR on these
matters,” the Synod urged the CTCR to complete its compre-
hensive study and report on the nature and implications of the
concept of fellowship and to disseminate this report through-
out the Synod as soon as possible. In January 1980 the CTCR
distributed copies of its “Bible Study on Fellowship” to the
congregations of the Synod and to all pastors not serving
congregations, with the invitation that they use a ‘Response
Questionnaire” provided at the end of the study as a means to
share the results of their study with the commission as it
completed its report on fellowship. This Bible study is included
in Appendix III of the Workbook.

Taking into account the responses to the Bible study, the
commission has now completed its study on fellowship and
offers this report to the congregations, pastors, and teachers of
the Synod in the hope that it will provide guidance to the
Synod. The commission wishes to thank the members of the
Synod for the many opportunities granted it for widespread
discussion of the issue of fellowship during the past four years
and especially for the constructive way in which so many of the
pastors and congregations of the Synod responded to the
“Bible Study on Fellowship.” It is the commission's prayer
that this matter will continue to receive thorough study in the
Synod to the end that the church may be extended, external
unity among Christians increased. and all members of the
body of Christ edified. For the text of this report, see Appendix
III of this Workbook.

2. Euthanasia

Recognizing the serious implications connected with the
issue of euthanasia, the Synod urged the CTCR and its Social
Concerns Committee in 1977 to complete as soon as possible its
report on euthanasia (1977 Res. 3-30 *To Affirm Sacredness of
Human Life’). This assignment originated with a 1967 resolu-
tion of the Synod that the CTCR conduct a comprehensive
study of various life-related issues (1967 Res. 2-28). The CTCR
reported to the 1979 convention that this study had been
completed and that it would be distributed to the pastors.
teachers, and congregations of the Synod. This was done in the
fall of 1979. Since it was not possible for this report to be printed
in the 1979 Convention Workbook and in view of the import-
ance ofthis matter to all the members of the Synod, the “Report
on Euthanasia with Guiding Principles” as prepared by the