LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 205

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

3. CHURCH RELATIONS 205

evaluate these constitutional modifications on the prac-
tice of the LWF. On account of our position toward the
German territorial churches that are members of the
LWF, we are committed to special caution and con-
scientiousness. Affiliation with the LWF dare not effect
church fellowship with such churches from which we
had to separate for the reason of tolerated heresy. The
LWF includes not only Lutheran churches undermined
by modern existentialist theology, but, e.g. also the
United (uniert) Church of Pomerania. As the tendency
of the LWF, hitherto outspoken and retained also after
the constitutional modification, goes toward generally
establishing pulpit and altar fellowship, joining the LWF
would practically be tantamount to the end of our Lu-
theran Free Churches in Germany.

We are grateful for the second point in Report on
Lutheran World Federation, the study document of your
church. There you point out, as it has been done time
and again before, “that everything that shall be done
in this respect may be undertaken in close contact and
cooperation with the sister churches of the Missouri
Synod.” This encourages us, reverend fathers and
brethren in Christ, to submit our request to you to
avoid any resolutions from your convention importing
an affiliation of your church with the Lutheran World
Federation.

THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN FREE
CuHurcH oF GERMANY

HEInricH WILLKomMM, President

[3-36 Un]
Communication from the Ev. Lutheran
Church — Synod of France and Belgium

Our dear sister Synod in Germany, the Evangelical
Lutheran Free Church, through its President, Pastor
H. Willkomm, has graciously communicated to us a copy
of its memorial addressed to your convention on Feb-
ruary 27 and thus given us this opportunity to join her
in her effort toward safeguarding unity of action within
our worldwide family of confessional Lutheran
Churches with regard to relationship to the Lutheran
World Federation.

We welcome this opportunity. Also our Evangelical
Lutheran Church—Synod of France and Belgium,
through its Executive Council, herewith respectfully
submits to your venerable convention the following:

1. We do wholeheartedly approve and endorse the
urgent plea of our German sister church: “to avoid
any resolutions importing an affiliation with the Lu-
theran World Federation.”

2. We recall in this respect the well-documented
Memorandum approved, and the Resolution voted by
our own delegate synod assembled in Mulhouse
(France), already on Nov. 1, 1963, wherein our church
urged all our sister churches, especially of the Synodical
Conference, to reaffirm the resolution which they
adopted in common in Uelzen in 1952, to decline full
membership in the LWF “as long as the LWF in its
executive organization and/or in its member-churches

does not make of the Lutheran Confessions also de facto
the norma normata of all doctrine and church-practice.”

3. For we believe that the still ongoing study re-
ferred to in the memorial of our German brethren, “in
view of evaluating the constitutional modification on
the practice of the Lutheran World Federation,” will
only show that these changes of its constitution voted
by the LWF in Helsinki have changed neither the struc-
ture nor the essence nor least of all the policy of the
Federation. Recent experience of action taken by the
LWF, even after said modifications have become effec-
tive, have only strengthened us in this conviction.

(Thus, in September, 1964, despite previous official
investigation and warning, the LWF has granted recog-
nition to the so-called “Protestant-Lutheran Church”
of Brussels, which had separated from our church and
from the Missouri Synod to join the liberal Protestant
Union Church of Belgium.)

4. There is in these constitutional changes a very
evident self-contradiction:

a. On one hand, part of these “changes” tend toward
accentuating the alleged character of the LWF as a mere
“free conference” or “agency” or “platform for doctrinal
discussion.”

(N.B.: It is to be noted, however, that, no matter
whether it acts on its own or only on borrowed au-
thority, the LWF admittedly accepts the responsibility
to exercise real spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and
therefore does act as a church; just as any synod is
rightly regarded as a church even though it acts only
on behalf of its member congregations!)

b. On the other hand, certain changes voted in Hel-
sinki tend to strengthen the “church character” of the
Federation (e.g., stronger doctrinal basis; expulsion
of member churches made possible) — although, as
shown under paragraph 3, the LWF has despite these
changes manifested in reality its continued readiness to
accept union churches, hence to conduct itself as a
liberal church union!

c. With all these self-contradictions, must we not
draw the conclusion: Let the LWF choose, which of
the two courses it wants to take — and then go all the
way in the one chosen direction:

Either let it act as a mere agency for cooperation
in externals only and for providing a platform for free
theological discussion.

Or else let it decide to act (as it does in reality)
as a real church organization but then in a fully respon-
sible manner: by accepting or excluding member
churches according to correct Scriptural principles of
church fellowship!

The LWF cannot logically pretend to go in two oppo-
site directions at the same time.

5. It is a fallacy to maintain that a church can accept
and hold full membership in the LWF without also
sharing full responsibility for all that the LWF does
or fails to do, whether this be done “on its own au-
thority” or “merely as an agent of one or several
member churches.”