LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 282

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

282 SUPPLEMENT TO CTCR REPORT

the Central District in 1895, indicates that theologians
of other Lutheran bodies often spoke critically of the
confessional position and the resulting practice in the
Missouri Synod. He writes:

As the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod, so also
Missourian practice has, as it were, become proverbial.
Our ecclesiastical opponents understand by it a harsh,
rigoristic, legalistic practice. The same accusation is also
made against our doctrine. ... This accusation does not
fit. .. . Some call our practice legalistic for the very
reason that it is in accord with the Word of God, in
particular with the Gospel.59

The synodical fathers who insisted that the practice
of the church should flow from, and be in harmony with
the church’s confession, were by no means unaware of
the fact that there are some matters in the area of
churchly practice which are not established by the Word
of God. On this point Dr. A. L. Graebner says:

Churchly practice is in part established by the norm of

God’s Word, in part subject to the free judgment of
the Christian congregation.6¢

He adds:

Insofar as churchly practice is established by the Word
of God, the oneness of the norm demands unity of
churchly practice as a divine command to the whole
church. So far as churchly practice is subject to the free
judgment of the congregation, unified churchly practice
dare not be demanded as though it were a divine
command.

It was only of ecclesiastical practice clearly de-
manded by the Word of God and by the Scriptural
confession of the church that the fathers held that it
was a norm for the granting or withholding of church
fellowship.

iii. Evaluation of Churchly Practice As a Criterion
for Church Fellowship

On the positive side it should be said that the
founders of the Synodical Conference were deeply con-
cerned to be and to remain loyal to the Scriptures and
the Lutheran Confessions. They believed that this could
be achieved only if churchly practice flowed from and
was regulated by the church’s confession. On this
point G. writes in Der Lutheraner:

The Confession is not to be a mere empty formula, is not
to remain a dead letter on the paper of the constitution,
but the Confession must regulate the whole activity of
a church body, its churchly actions must be in harmony
with the Confession and permeated by the Confession.®1!

It must be said that while the fathers emphasize time
and time again that what they said about churchly prac-
tice as a criterion for church fellowship concerning only
practice demanded by the Word of God and the Lu-
theran Confession, it appears that at times they de-
manded for church fellowship more with respect to
churchly practice than is warranted by the Scripture or
the Lutheran Confessions. The following theses from
the 18 theses on church fellowship, which were dis-
cussed and accepted’ during the early years of the Syn-
odical Conference may serve as examples:

Thesis eleven: It is a contradiction of the Confession,
when a church body is content that her pastors do not
have a proper but only a temporary call from their con-
gregations, or if the church body itself encourages this
disorder through the custom of licensing.

Thesis twelve: It is a crying contradiction of the Con-

fession when a church body which calls itself Lutheran
and desires to be Lutheran does not show earnest zeal,
so far as it is able, to start orthodox parochial schools
where these are not in existence.62

Furthermore, such demands in matters of practice
coupled with charges of laxity in discipline were a major
factor in disturbing the relations of the synods in the
Synodical Conference particularly in the decades pre-
ceding the year 1960, leading finally to the withdrawal,
first of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and then of the
Wisconsin Synod from the Synodical Conference. What
appeared to some not only allowable but perhaps even
necessary in the light of Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions was pronounced sinful unionism by others.

While at the organization of the Evangelical Lutheran
Synodical Conference of North America in 1872 the
founding fathers appear to have been able to agree on
the “Theses on Church Fellowship,” as time went on it
became increasingly impossible for all at all times to
agree on “the deductions which properly follow from
the words of this confession” or on the precise churchly
practice which would in a given situation conform to
the confession.

ABBREVIATIONS
BC The Book of Concord, trans. Theodore G. Tappert

et al. Philadelphia, 1959.

NPF A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
eds. Ph. Schaff and H. Wace. Buffalo and New York,
1886—1900; reprint, Grand Rapids, 1952 ff.

PG Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed. J. P.
Migne. Paris, 1857—66.

PL Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, ed. J. P.
Migne. Paris, 1844—55.

WA_ D2: Martin Luthers Werke. Weimar, 1883 ff. Tischreden

(WA TR).
FOOTNOTES

1 Cf. Canons VI, XXXII, XXXIII of the Synod of Lao-
dicea, and Canon VI of the Council of Constantinople (NPF,
Second Series, XIV, 127, 149. 183). See also Werner Elert,
Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche
hauptsaechlich des Ostens (Berlin, 1954), pp. 93—96, and
Tom Hardt, “Keine Kirchengemeinschaft mit Haeretikern!”
Lutherische Blaetter, XII, 65 (July, 1960), pp. 62 ff.

2 Epist. 222, 2 (PL 33, 999): trans. in Roy J. Deferrari,
ed., Fathers of the Church (New York, 1956), XIII, 114f.

3 Cf. Heinz Brunotte and Otto Weber, eds., Evange-
lisches Handlexikon (Goettingen, 1956), I, 950: “Neben der
Bildung des Kanons der HI. Schrift entstanden schon sehr
frueh in den Gemeinden Glaubensbekenntnisse zum litur-
gischen und katechetischen Gebrauch, die allmaehlig im
Apostolikum ihre eigentliche Gestalt fanden und in dieser
Form zur Glaubensregel (regula fidei) wurden.”

4 Quaestionum Septemdecim in Matthaeum Liber Unus,
xi, 1 (PL 35, 1367). The English ‘translation is by Fred
Kramer, as also in subsequent quotations unless otherwise
noted.

5 De Utilitate Credendi, 1 (PL 42, 65); trans. in J. H. S.
Burleigh, ed., Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia,
1953), VI, 291.

6 De Civitate Dei, xviii, 51 (PL 41, 613); translated in
NPF, First Series, II, 392.

7 De Utilitate Credendi, 1. See footnote 5.

8 De Baptismo Contra Donatistas, iv, 16 (PL 43, 169);
translated in NPF, First Series, IV, 457.

9 Epist. 48 (PL 33, 160); trans. in Roy J. Deferrari, ed.,
Fathers of the Church (New York, 1951), XII, 182.

10 Quaestionum Septemdecim, etc. See footnote 4.

11 Contra Cresconium Donatistam (PL 43, 469 ff.).

12 Kine Freiheit des Sermons pdpstlichen Ablass und
Gnade belangend (WA 1, 391).