LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 389

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

the specific procedures to be followed in delineating external relationships
with those who do not correctly confess the faith (fides quae}, they do clearly
teach that separation from them (refusal to affirm or continue church
fellowship) is commanded by God.

9. The quest for church fellowship (in the sense of external unity
in the church), as well as its acknowledgement when agreement inthe
confession of the faith has been achieved, are not optional matters
but Scriptural mandates (Rom. 12:14-21; 15:5-6; Eph. 4:1-3; 1 Cor. 1:10-13:
2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 4:2. Cf. Preface to The Book of Concord. pp.
13-14; Preface to the Augsburg Confession, 4, 10; FC SD, Rule and Norm, 14:
X, 31).:¢ The refusal of church fellowship for any reason other than
disagreement in the confession of the faith (e. g., differences in ceremonies,
polity, national origin, language), violates the law of Christian love, even as
does all loveless and misguided “concern” for the truth. Separatism
(sectarianism) is condemned by God's Word. The Scriptures command
those who are one in Christ both to seek agreement in the confession of the
faith (fides quae) with all those who profess faith in Christ and to
acknowledge the existence of church fellowship once this agreement has
been reached.

*eCf. “A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism.” pp
9—10

16

Il. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE NATURE
OF FELLOWSHIP FOR
CHURCH-BODY-LEVEL RELATIONSHIPS

A. PRINCIPLES—-NOT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES
FOR INDIVIDUAL CASES

Although the Scriptures have much to say about the spiritual unity
which binds all believers together in the body of Christ and with one another,
and despite the exhortations of the inspired writers that the church should
seek to manifest its given unity externally without endangering the means by
which the unity of the church is created, God's Word does not prescribe
specific procedures for carrying this out in each particular case. St. Paul, for
example, writes tothe churches of Galatia” that he was astonished that they
were “so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and
turning to a different gospel.” He says to the one who preaches a gospel
contrary to that which they had received, “Let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9)
But the apostle does not tell us precisely how he dealt with these Judaizers
upon his arrival in Galatia.”

Did St. Paul continue to worship with them? Did he exclude them from
the Lord’s Supper? And even if he had reported how he handled this

“Ct. Martin Franzmann, “Exegesis on Romans 16:17 ff..”
p. 18. Franzmann describes the complexity of the situation which
existed in the church in Galatia: “The most persistent troublers of
Pauline congregations and Pauline missions... were undoubtedly
dudaizers, known to us best and most clearly from the Epistles to
the Galatians and the Book of Acts. Acts (15:5) tells that they
were Pharisees who had come to the faith. St. Paul’s language
concerning them in Galatians is stern and uncompromising,
designed to lay bare the fundamental contradiction between their
propaganda and the Gospel of the free grace of God in Christ
Jesus. But the very force and fury of his language is evidence that
what the Judaizers brought was deceptively like the real article
What they preached was, in their understanding of it, ‘another
gospel.’ and it is understandable that whereas St. Paul stresses
the ‘another,’ they stressed the ‘gospel. It is not beyond
imagination to think that they were of the conviction that they
were propagating a more conservative type of Christianity, the
genuine Jerusalem variety. made of sterner stuff than the man-
pleasing dilution of it that St. Paul had originaily proclaimed
among the Galatians.”

Il. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE NATURE
OF FELLOWSHIP FOR
CHURCH-BODY-LEVEL RELATIONSHIPS

situation. this would not necessarily mean that the specific procedure which
he followed in this particular instance would be applicable for all times and
places. We know, for example, that on one occasion St. Paul refused to
compe! Titus to be circumcised so that “the truth of the Gospel might be
preserved” (Gal. 2:1-5). But he also reports that in a different situation he
insisted on the circumcision of Timothy “because of the Jews that were in
those places, for they all knew that his father was aGreek” (Acts 16:3). ** The
Scriptures, rather than presenting the church with specific regulations for
each and every inter-Christian relationship, set forth fundamental principles
which are to be applied to the unique situation in which Christians find
themselves at any given point in history

B. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE CHURCH'S
APPLICATION OF THE SCRIPTURAL
PRINCIPLES OF FELLOWSHIP'9

Down through the centuries. seeking to be faithful to the principles of
fellowship presented in the Scriptures, Christians have developed various
procedures and organizational structures which have attempted to provide
orderly and helpful guidance for local congregations in their relanonships
with one another

During the first four centuries of the church as Chrisnanity spread
throughout the world, it became necessary to develop ways for geographical,
separated congregations to advise one another regarding church member-
ship. For the early church, church fellowship was altar fellowship, and unity
in doctrine was its prerequisite. 2° In keeping with this understanding, circular
letters were sent throughout Christendom reporting excommunications.
“Letters of Commendation” and later “Letters of Fellowship" and “Letters of
Peace” were “universally required of Christians in a strange place as

**Titus was a Greek. Hence to compel him to be
circumcised would be to compromise the Gospel. But Timothy.
although he had a Greek father. as the son of a Jewish mother
could be considered to be a Jew. Paul could therefore circumcise
him without compromisirs the Gospel

See “Theology of Fellowship,” A Report of the CTCR.
1967, pp. 12 f., for a more complete review of the practice of
church fellowship in church history.

20Werner Elert. Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the
First Four Centuries, trans. N. E. Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1966), p. 109. Elert writes {p. 113): “Heterodoxy
breaks church fellowship and therefore self-evidently and pri
marily also altar fellowship.”

389