LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 151

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 151

about the implications of our doctrinal differences for church
fellowship. For the ALC, fellowship between Lutheran church
bodies is a rather basic relationship reflecting a somewhat
minimal agreement in the Gospel and the sacraments: in this
view, doctrinal differences are to be tolerated both within and
between Lutheran church bodies, and are therefore not divisive
or disruptive of altar and pulpit fellowship. However, for the
LCMS (and traditionally, for other Lutheran church bodies as
well) altar and pulpit fellowship between church bodies is the
deepest and closest possible relationship precisely because it is
based on comprehensive agreement in the Biblical and confes-
sional doctrine of the Gospel. in allits articles, and inthe right
administration of the holy sacraments. In the LCMS view,
doctrinal differences cannot be tolerated either within or
between church bodies and are by their very nature disruptive
and divisive of altar and pulpit fellowship.

Theessential facts, then. are these: (1) both the ALC and the
LCMS acknowledge that they have doctrinal disagreements;
(2)the church bodies have been unsuccessful in resolving their
doctrinal differences in spite of 12 vears of doctrinal discussion,
including 4 vears of fellowship in protest: and, (3) for the
LCMS, such doctrinal differences are disruptive of altar and
pulpit fellowship.

The choices confronting the LCMS at this time are very
limited, indeed. First, the Synod could redefine its under-
standing of the nature and basis of altar and pulpit fellowship.
After exploring that possibility, the CTCR has concluded that
the Synod’s traditional understanding not only has strong
Biblical, confessional, and historical warrant but continues to
provide the Synod with a responsible way to relate to other
church bodies. To recommend a change in our definition of
altar and pulpit fellowship at this time is not warranted and
would not be a responsible and faithful act of churchmanship.

Second, the Synod could continue its state of “fellowship in
protest” for an additional period of time. The commission itself
recommended protesting fellowship in 1977 as a responsible
alternative at that time to either maintaining fellowship
without qualification or terminating it immediately. Such a
relationship, the commission argued, would not only give the
church bodies further opportunities to attempt to resolve their
differences in doctrine, but would also provide the Synod with
additional time to study and clarify its own understanding of
the nature and implications of fellowship and to become more
aware of the serious differences that exist at the church body
level. In 1979 the Synod continued ‘fellowship in protest”
largely because such studies had not vet been completed.
However, the commission believes that the earlier concerns for
additional study and information have now been satisfactorily
met, assisted by the aforementioned “Statement of Doctrinal
Differences’ document, the Bible study on fellowship prepared
and distributed throughout the Synod by the commission in
1979, the new CTCR document on “The Nature and Implica-
tions of Fellowship,” and numerous conferences during the
past four years involving thousands of our pastors and
teachers.

The commission recognizes that the continuation of fellow-
ship in protest is an attractive suggestion to some members of
the Synod, particularly in view of the fact that the current
union discussions between the ALC, the LCA, and the AELC
are scheduled to lead to organizational decisions within a few
years. Obviously, a union of those church bodies in a new
structure would automatically nullify the existing altar and
pulpit fellowship relationship between the LCMS and the ALC.
However, allowing fellowship to be discontinued by default
would not be a proper way for the LCMS to deal with the ALC,
especially in view of those doctrinal positions which we regard
as contrary to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
Moreover, it belongs to the very nature of “fellowship in
protest,” as the Synod stated in 1977, that ifthe circumstances
which called forth the protest are not corrected in due time, ‘‘the
implication is that the protest will lead to the severence of
fellowship relations” (Res. 3-02A). Such a state of “fellowship
in protest” can be responsibly continued only as long as there
is some hope of improvement in the conditions that evoked it,
and it must be frankly acknowledged that the efforts of the past
four years offer no basis for such hope. Finally, it should also be
noted that the attention of the ALC at this time appears to be
more directly focused on its union discussions with the LCA

and the AELC than on resolving its doctrinal differences with
the LCMS.

The remaining option is the discontinuation of altar and
pulpit fellowship with The American Lutheran Church. After
considering and rejecting the options of redefining fellowship
and continuing fellowship in protest, the commission has
reluctantly concluded that this action must be taken at this
time. but in a way that not only assures the ALC of our good
will and Christian regard as we continue to work together in
the Lutheran Council and in other ways, but also recognizes
the need for the members of the LCMS to exercise patience and
mutual respect foreach other as our pastors and congregations
continue to deal with members of the ALC in pastoral-care
situations. Moreover, the commission believes that the discon-
tinuation of altar and pulpit fellowship with The American
Lutheran Church needs to be followed by vigorous efforts on the
part of the Synod to continue to seek doctrinal consensus with
the ALC and other Lutheran bodies, no matter how long that
endeavor may take or how difficult it might be.

Without doubt, the discontinuation of altar and pulpit
fellowship with The American Lutheran Church will cause
difficult practical problems and will require the careful reexam-
ination of a number of joint activities and efforts. To assist
convention delegates in acting knowledgeably and respon-
sibly, the commission has asked the President of the Synod to
appoint a representative committee to develop guidelines
explaining the practical implications of the dicontinuation of
fellowship. This procedure is similar to the one followed prior to
the 1969 synodical convention. when altar and pulpit fellow-
ship with the ALC was established.

Finally, the commission wants to assure the members of
both the LCMS and the ALC that in discussing altar and pulpit
fellowship we are in no sense discussing or calling into
question the bond of faith that exists between al] Christians as
members of the body of Christ and of the one, holy, catholic.
and apostolic church. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
continues to regard that bond of faith as a most precious gift of
our gracious God. In fact, it is precisely because that precious
gift is jeopardized by doctrinal error in the proclamation and
confession of a church body that we continue to believe that
agreement in doctrine and practice is necessary for altar and
pulpit fellowship. (See recommendations below, at the end of
this section on inter-Lutheran relationships.)

2. Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

The commission reported to the 1979 synodical convention
(CW, p. 76) that the President of the Synod, in response to 1977
Res. 3-14, had appointed a committee similar to the Commis-
sion on Fellowship with the ALC to initiate discussions with
official representatives of the ELCC on the doctrine of Scrip-
ture, the ordination of women, and other possible differences.
This committee did not meet during the past biennium. In its
recommendations on inter-Lutheran relationships (see
recommendations below, at the end of this section on inter-
Lutheran Relationships), the commission is proposing that
further discussions between representatives of the ELCC and
the LCMS be facilitated during the coming biennium.

3. Lutheran Council in the U.S.A.

The commission has been kept informed of the activities of
the Lutheran Council during the past biennium by the Presi-
dent of Synod.

Reports on the work of the council’s Division of Theological
Studies, which is of particular interest to the CTCR, have been
presented at each of the commission’s meetings by Drs. Barth,
Bohlmann, and Nafzger, who represent the LCMS on the
standing committee of this division. Dr. Paul D. Opsahl, after
having served the division from the beginning of the Lutheran
Council in 1967, first as its associate executive director and
then as its executive director, left the council in June 1979 to
accept a call to an ALC parish in Houston. Dr. William Rusch
had previously left the division in 1978. Dr. Joseph A. Burgess
is presently serving as the executive director of the Division of
Theological Studies.

During the past biennium the Division of Theological
Studies has continued to carry out its constitutionally assigned
responsibility to “plan, engage in, and supervise a program of
theological studies in areas which are of concern in con-