Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1965 · 46th Convention › Page 288

LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1965, Page 288

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

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

288 SUPPLEMENT TO CTCR REPORT

This Prussian Union was very distasteful to loyal
Lutherans, and those who favored the union were called
unionists (Unionisten). 18

The terms “unionism” and “unionist” were frequently
used by the fathers of the Missouri Synod, though also
the term “syncretism” (Synkretismus), which had been
generally used prior to 1817, and “mixing of religions”
(Religionsmengerei) were extensively employed.!4

In part these terms were used, as they had been in
Germany, to characterize the union of Reformed and
Lutherans without removal of the doctrinal differences
which divided them.

Later, however, the terms “unionism” and “unionist”
were frequently applied when Lutherans who were not
wholly agreed in doctrine and practice nevertheless
worked and worshiped together.!®

It is difficult to get a clearcut definition of unionism
from the literature of The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod. An official definition of unionism by the Missouri
Synod in 1932 reads:

We repudiate unionism, that is, church fellowship with
the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God’s
command, as causing divisions in the church, Rom. 16:
17; 2 John 9, 10, and as involving the constant danger of
losing the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2:17-21 (Brief
Statement ..., Par. 28).

It should be noted that here unionism is church fel-
lowship with adherents of false doctrine generally, not
only with Reformed, as the word unionism was origin-
ally used.

Another definition, later in time than the Brief State-
ment, appears to include in the concept of unionism far
more than church fellowship with adherents of false
doctrine, namely also “joint work of those not united in
doctrine,” and “mixed (promiscuous) prayer among
those who profess the truth and those who deny any
part of it.”

We quote the following, as embodying the essential
points, from the longer statement:

Religious unionism consists in joint worship and work
of those not united in doctrine. Its essence is an agree-
ment to disagree....
The statement then lists the familiar passages, a num-
ber of which have been treated exegetically above,
and adds:

In the light of these texts all joint ecclesiastical efforts

for religious work (missionary, educational, etc.) and

particularly joint worship and mixed (promiscuous)

prayer among those who profess the truth and those

why deny any part of it, is sinful unionism.16

In this last definition of unionism particular stress
is laid on activities which do not assume church fel-
lowship, like praying with Christians of another con-
fession. The last part of this definition of unionism
seemed to many to make impossible even the joint
prayer for the Holy Spirit’s aid by Lutherans of dif-
fering synods when they met to seek to overcome
their differences. It was also thought to brand partici-
pation in prayer at mixed gatherings, civic and patriotic,
as sinful unionism.

2. Separatism

Like the term unionism, so also the term separatism,
is not a Biblical but an ecclesiastical word. Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary defines separatism
as “a disposition toward secession or schism,” and a
separatist as a “dissenter from an established church.”

While unionism is often and variously defined in the
writings of our synodical fathers, the term separatism
occurs much less frequently. Eckhardt gives the fol-
lowing definition of separation and of separatism:

Separation, eine Trennung auf schriftgemaesse Weise
wegen falscher Lehre, und Separatismus, eine Tren-
nung wider die Schrift aus allerlei andern Gruenden.1?

It is evident that the concepts of unionism and
separatism are intimately related. Unionism is at-
tempted union when separation is in order, and
separatism is separation when union is in order.

3. Unionism and Separatism: Twin Dangers
to the Church

Both unionism and separatism constitute serious
dangers to the church. Unionism ignores genuine dif-
ferences in doctrine, and treats them as though they
were unimportant. It tends to foster laxity in doctrine,
which, like the little leaven, will in time leaven the
whole lump (Gal. 5:9). On the other hand, separatism,
as already St. Augustine clearly stated, sins against
love and divides the church, just as surely as unionism
undermines it. The church must therefore, for its own
safety, shun both unionism and separatism.

C. SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR THE CHURCH
IN THE PRACTICE OF FELLOWSHIP

The task of avoiding unionism on the one hand and
separatism on the other while faithfully performing
the church’s God-given tasks has proved difficult
throughout the ages, and will continue to prove diffi-
cult until her Lord’s return. Christians will at times
be puzzled in specific situations, particularly when they
are dealing with a church with which their own church
is not in pulpit and altar fellowship.

No statement, including this THEoLOcy or FELLow-
SHIP, can give complete guidance for every possible
ease. However, the following guidlines appear Scrip-
turally sound, and in harmony with the Lutheran
Confessions:

1. Our Synod should treasure the fellowship in the
Gospel and in the sacraments which it enjoys
with its sister churches and which it expresses
through what is usually called pulpit and altar
fellowship; and it should foster this fellowship
with all diligence;

2. Our Synod should work zealously for the exten-
sion of this fellowship by engaging in doctrinal
discussions with other churches in the interest
of achieving such fellowship where this can be
done without compromising sound doctrine;

3. Our Synod should understand that, in the case
of doctrinal discussions carried on with a view