LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 391

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

proposal, fang to distnguish cleariy between spiritual fellowship and
crurch fellouship. does not take seriously either the unity of the church
which is given with faith (Thesis 1) or external unity in the church which is
constituted by agreement ir confession (Thesis 7!. As aresult the advocates
of this mode: frequently give the impression that Christians can actually
ettect the spirrua! unity of the church through their own efforts toward
orgamc umon. In addinon conciharity. based on a doctrinal pluralism
resuiting from the ‘orteiture of the normative authority of Holy Scripture
‘Thesis 3). comes into direct confict with the Scriptura! exhortations for
Christians to seek the edification of the members of Christ's body by
confessing the fath in accordance with God's Word (Thesis 6). The
Ser:ptures condemn aii attempts to achieve external unity in the church by
compromising the prophetic and apostolic witness through which the Holy
Sp:r:t works to create the unity of the church as a violation of the law of
stian love Thesis 5}

2. Reconciled Diversity

Just as conciiarity has come to be identified with the World Council of
Churches. so reconciied diversity 15 the model for external unity in the
cnurch which is generally thought of in connection with the Lutheran World
Federation anc the other confessional groupings of churches. This modei:s
described in a discussion paper on “The Ecumenica! Role of the World
Contessiona! Familes in the One Ecumenical Movement” which was
c:scussed at a 1974 meeting of the Conference of Secretaries of World
Coniessionai Farmhes. *

The advocates of reconciied diversity. referring to the “acceptance of
one another not oniy as individuals, but also in our different traditions and
contessions” as a “fundamental insight of the ecumenical movement.”
manmtain “that fidelity to truth as percewed by individual confessions is not
sncompatibie.”*” Aithough the church of Jesus Christ is “by definition a
confessing Church with its identity grounded in him who is confessed as
Lord.” this confession “is expressed incompletely in the different confes.
sional identities of the world families of churches." It is a mistake, according
+o the report of the World Confessional Families. to equate confessional

“WCC Exchange. No. 3 2, July 1977. Representatives
from 14 confessional families including the Lutheran World
Federation participate in the meetings of the “Conferences of
Secretaries of WCFs,” which are informal. (The Conference has
no constitution.)

“Ibid. p. 6

“Ibid. p. 7

24

diversity” as “an ecumenical fellowship in which each confessional heritage
and confessional identity is still maintained.” +! Contending that both of these
models “are lacking in clarity and explicitness,” he concludes that “the idea of
umity as ‘reconciled diversity’ can still be of some help, as long as itis purified
and critically examined diversity. since it describes a way of unity which does
not automatically entail the surrender of confessiona! traditions and confes-
sional identities.” ++ Aarflot continues

This way to unity 1s a way of lwing encounter. sp:ritua! experience
together. theological dialogue and mutual correction. a way in which the
distinctwweness of each partner is not lost sight of Dut stands out. :s
transformed and renewed. and in this way becomes visible and palpable
to the other partners. There is no glossing over differences. Nor are the
difterences simply preserved and maintained unaltered. But they lose
their diwiste character as they are reconciled to each other. **

Bishop Aaarflot strongly emphasizes the element of reconciliation. “Unity
and reconciliation do not mean mere coexistences” but “genuine church
fellowship. including as its essential elements the recognition of baptism.
pulpit and altar fellowship, the mutual! recognition of church ministries, anda
binding common purpose of witness and service.”**

Although differences exist between conciliarity and reconciled diversity
as models for implementing external unity in the church, they share the same
basic strengths and weaknesses with respect to the Scriptural principles of
fellowship. Like conciliarity, reconciled diversity rightly emphasizes the
Scriptural exhortations for Christians “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace” (Thesis 9).+° But despite a greater awareness by those

Blbid., p. 43.

#Ibid., p. 45.

#Ibid., p. 45—46

Ibid. p. 46.

Cf. Ibid., p. 41. Bishop Aarflot writes: “We are under
obligation to strive together to bring forth the true unity of the
church (Eph. 4, 1 ff.). This basic obligation constrains us, both
within our own churches andin wider organizational structures of
an ecumenical character... . The guiding principle of our efforts is
the basic universal unity which we believe the churches share as
long as they are committed to the one apostolic faith. This is a
unity given in Christ. ... We want to stress the fact, however, that
the unity we seek should be an outward recognizable unity which
becomes historically manifest in the life of the churches. The
confession of the hidden unity of the church is not a sufficient
expression of the true unity that we seek.”

26

identity with an anti-ecumenical stance. To expect “some kind of unitorm
ecumenical Christian theology and culture to emerge in a uniform pattern
would be to deny the multiplicity of the gifts of the Spirit and the manifold
variety of creation and history.” This report continues:

We consider the variety of denominational hertages .egutimate insotar
as the truth of the one faith explicates itself in history on a vanety of
expressions. We do not overlook the fact that such expiications of the
faith have been marked by error which has threatened the unity of the
Church. On the other hand. it needs to be seen that a heritage remains
legitimate and can be preserved. if it is properiy translated into new
historical situations. If it 1s. it remains a vaiuabie contmbution 0 the
richness of life in the Church unwersal.

In the open encounter with other hentages the contnbutior of a
particular denomination can lose its character of denominational exc:u
siveness. Therefore, unity and fellowship among the churches do no?
require uniformity of faith and order, but can and must encompass a
plurality or diversity of convictions and traditions. Confessiona:
loyalities and ecumenical commitment are no contradiction, but are
one— paradoxical as it may seem. When existing differences between
churches lose their divisive character, a vision of unity emerges which
has the character of a ‘reconciled diversity ‘+

The conclusion of this way of thinking, therefore. is that it is not organic unity’
but “reconciled diversity,’ which acknowledges under the Gospel that the
things of the faith which unite are greater than those that separate.” which
offers the most appropriate model of achieving external unity in the church
today.

Bishop Andreas Aarflot from Norway has encouraged the Lutheran
World Federation to pursue the goal of “reconciled diversity” in its quest for
external unity in the church. In an essay he presented to the sixth assembly of
the LWF in Dar-es-Salaam in 1977, Bishop Aarflot asks the question: “What
kind of unity do we seek?” In answering this question. Aarflot takes up what
he calls “two tendencies within the ecumenical movement”: “organic union”
as the attempt to unite churches of different confessional traditions “in sucha
way that they surrender their previous confessional identity in order to
constitute a new church with new norms and new identity” and “reconciled

39] bid.

“Ibid, p. 9.

“Ibid., p. 7.

42 Andreas Aarflot, “The Lutheran Church and the Unity
of the Church,” In Christ A New Community: The Proceedings
of the Sixth Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation
(Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 1977), pp. 35-51.

25

who advocate reconciled diversity that “certain elements of common
Christian understanding are indispensable for the true unity of the church”
(Thesis 6). and that “we must. . . carry the burden of separation wherever
this 1s necessary in order to witness to the truth of the gospel" (Thesis 8). #* in
the final analysis this model for external unity in the church is founded on the
unscriptural notion that church fellowship can be based on agreement in the
Gospel in the narrow sense while tolerating disagreement in other doctrines
taught in the Scriptures (Thesis 7).*# Like "the lowest common denominator”
approach of conciliarism, so the “agreement to disagree” model of reconciled
diversity violates the law of Christian love through its willingness to practice
“genuine church fellowship” where there is disagreement "in doctrine andin
all its articles” and in “the right use of the holy sacraments” (Thesis 5).

There 1s a troublesome ambiguity about reconciled diversity as a mode!
for effecting external unity in the church. As the Rev. John Gatu, general
secretary of the Presbyterian Church of East Africa, stated in his response to
Bishop Aarflot’s address to the LWF assembly: “My problem is that the
speaker expects a perpetuation of a Lutheran identity in the organic union
That of course is tantamount to saying that the only way to church unity is for
all of us to become Lutherans!"5* Reconciled diversity either has no
theological reason for preserving the identity of the individual confessional
famihes in that it is genuinely willing to tolerate doctrinal pluralism. or it
imphcitly suggests the superiority of one confessional position over the other.
a stance which is offensive to Christians belonging to other confessiona
families who are expected to be a part of this external unity of reconciled
diversity. Each of these viewpoints compromises certain of the Scriptura
principles of fellowship.

3. Selective Fellowship

Selective altar and pulpit fellowship is sometimes proposed as a mode
for external unity in the church. The 1946 convention of the former American
Lutheran Church, for example, adopted a resolution calling for the practice

*lbid.. p. 45

Cf. “The Ecumenical! Role of the World Confessional
Families in the One Ecumenical Movement,” p. 9: “Unity and
fellowship among the churches do not require uniformity of faith
andorder, but can and must encompass a plurality of diversity of
convictions and traditions.” (Emphasis added.)

“Response by The Rev. John Gatu,” In Christ—A Neu:
Community: The Proceedings of the Sixth Assembly of the
Lutheran World Federation (Geneva: The Lutheran World
Federation, 1977), p. 53

391