Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1965 · 46th Convention › Page 281
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 281
front matter 1
front matter 2
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
orgs
ee ae ee
ia a a
THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP 281
a. That the Confessions must be subscribed to quia,
not quatenus, i.e. because, not merely insofar as,
they are correct expositions of the Scripture;
b. That all doctrines taught in the Confessions are
binding;
c. That subscription to the Confessions must be im-
plemented by corresponding public teaching (pub-
lica doctrina) in pulpit, instruction room, semi-
nary, and in the church’s publications, and that
all who departed from this norm were to be dis-
ciplined.
i. Evaluation of This Principle
Point a. of the above position which calls for un-
qualified subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, is
necessary in order that a congregation may have the
assurance that its pastor is really a Lutheran pastor,
who will preach the Lutheran doctrine. The so-called
quatenus subscription would open the floodgates to
arbitrariness in doctrine.5? Point b. is necessary for the
same reason.
Point c. which stresses that Lutheran doctrine must
not merely be subscribed to on paper, but must actually
be taught in pulpit, instruction room, and in the church’s
seminaries and publications, is wholly in accord with
the Augsburg Confession, which, according to the Ger-
man version, lays the stress on publica doctrina when
it says:
... it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian
church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with
a pure understanding of it. . 54
ii. Churehly Practice As a Criterion
for Church Fellowship
Along with unqualified subscription to the Lutheran
Confessions as well as public teaching in accord with
the Confessions a third principle of church fellowship
is stressed in the writings of the fathers of the Missouri
Synod. It is this that also the churchly practice must
be in harmony with the confessions.
Principles basic in the thinking of the fathers of the
Synodical Conference with respect to churchly practice
and its relationship to church fellowship were laid down
in the 18 Theses, the first sixteen of which were dis-
cussed at the meetings of the Synodical Conference from
1873—1879.55 The third of these theses reads:
The sole external bond of fellowship between individual
Lutheran congregations among different peoples and
languages is the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
Thesis four says:
Therefore that is not an orthodox Lutheran congrega-
tion or Lutheran church body which does not accept the
doctrinal and polemic words of this confession as it reads.
Thesis five says:
Also he who denies the deductions which properly follow
from the words of this confession is not a true member
of the Lutheran Church, even though contrary to all
right, he clings to the name Lutheran.
An example of such a deduction or conclusion is
given in the sixth thesis: -
From the character and nature of this orthodox con-
fession it follows of necessity that churchly practice
must be conformed to it. For every churchly action is
either an immediate expression and actual carrying out
of the confession, or at least such an activity which,
even though it may lie in the area of Christian liberty,
nevertheless dare not actually contradict the confession.
Because they were persuaded that churchly practice
must be in conformity with the church’s confession the
fathers of the Synodical Conference concluded that
churchly practice may become a criterion for the grant-
ing or denial of church fellowship.
Thesis 7: From this necessary connection between the
confession and the church’s practice it follows logically
that a Lutheran Synod, in which the reigning practice
is in accord with the confession, dare not unite with
another Synod which calls itself Lutheran, but in which
the reigning practice is contrary to the confession.
Subsequent theses show that the fathers considered
the following to be practice contrary to the confession,
and therefore a bar to church fellowship: toleration on
the part of Lutheran pastors of pulpit and altar fellow-
ship with non-Lutherans; lack of firm testimony against
membership in secret societies; the serving of united
(unierte: referring to the kind of ‘union’ of Reformed
and Lutheran churches first established in Prussia in
1817) congregations by Lutheran pastors; the toleration
of temporary calls for pastors; lack of earnestness in the
establishing of parochial schools; lack of proper care in
seeing to it that only orthodox books were used in
church, school, and home; and the absence of doctrinal
and church discipline.5&
Essays and articles from the pens of Professors A. L.
Graebner, George Stoeckhardt, and Martin Guenther
provide evidence that the importance of churchly prac-
tice in harmony with the Lutheran Confessions con-
tinued to occupy the thinking of the leading theologians
in the Missouri Synod also after 1879 and that they
continued to consider practice in harmony with the Con-
fessions necessary for church fellowship.
Dr. Graebner was careful to define what he meant
by churchly practice:
Churchly practice is the sum total of the formal actions
(Verrichtungen) and institutions (Einrichtungen) which
belong to the life of the Church as such.57
The fathers sought to distinguish between the life of
sanctification of individual Christians and churchly
practice. In an article entitled “Lutherische Praxis” in
Der Lutheraner, signed G (Prof. Martin Guenther) this
sentence appears:
When we speak of Lutheran practice, we do not mean
the personal life of the individual members of a con-
gregation, or of a church body, but that which the
congregation does as a body, or what it tolerates in
its midst, its activity, its institutions, its regulations.58
Yet the same article draws an analogy between the
faith and life of the individual Christian on the one
hand, and the church’s confession and churchly practice
on the other, and says:
Even as that man is not a Christian whose life contra-
dicts the confession: I am a Christian, so also that is
not a Lutheran congregation, not a Lutheran body, whose
churchly activity (kirchliches Tun) contradicts the Lu-
theran Confession.
An essay by Dr. George Stoeckhardt, delivered in