Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1969 · 48th Convention › Page 108
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1969, Page 108

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

108 CHURCH RELATIONS

united voice, and wielding influence far beyond their
numerical strength in a community that is the heart
of the two Carolinas and the economic and cultural
center for more than 2,000,000 people (75 mile radius).

(For instance, our own pastor’s influence is widely
recognized, both as a civic and religious leader — having
served, for example, as an elected commissioner of the
public school system —and our own congregation is
recognized for its early and advanced activities in the
area of human relations and racial integration. To-
gether with fellow pastors and sister congregations, the
Lutherans are acknowledged as factors in the early
development and continuation of Charlotte’s enlightened
and progressive racial and social attitudes. This is just
one area of significance.)

Lutheran unity came the hard way. When our pastor
came to the Carolinas nearly 40 years ago as the first
field missionary of the Synod, he was bitterly and
actively opposed by other Lutherans (although they
were serving less than 10 percent of the counties in the
two Carolinas). He was followed from station to station
by an official of the Lutheran Church in America (then
the United Lutheran Church), who attended his ser-
vices and took the names of people in attendance and
subsequently warned them against Missouri as “Yan-
kees, foreigners, exclusive, troublemakers, lodge-haters,
nigger-lovers,” etc. Every effort was made to alienate
from Missouri both Lutherans and non-Lutherans, the
latter comprising more than 90 percent of the new con-
gregations established. There was good reason, theo-
logically and practically, for the missionary and the
congregations he founded to be prejudiced against and
to hold aloof from the other Lutherans — except for the
Word and will of Christ and the advice of such re-
spected theologians of our Synod as Dr. Theodore En-
gelder and Dr. H. B. Hemmeter (both of whom served
our seminaries). Their advice resulted in a gradual
growth of friendship and association, understanding,
confidence, and good will— which soon developed into
deliberate consultations and mutual study, and ulti-
mately brought about agreement and unity both in
doctrine and practice.

For a number of years we have now been able to
present a united front and voice, with ever-increasing
influence and effectiveness.

In 1968, the pastors and congregations of Mecklen-
burg Circuit 9 submitted a memorial to the South-
eastern District in convention at Baltimore, which
stated:

Wuereas in the North Carolina Circuit No.9 area, after
much study, there has existed for some time the basis for
Fellowship, and

WHEREAS Circuit No.9 pastors and congregations feel

conscience-bound to remove the scandalous separation
between the Synods, therefore

Be It Resolved to memorialize the Southeastern District

1) to declare the readiness of the Southeastern Dis-
trict to practice Fellowship with the American Lutheran
Church, and

2) that the District memorialize Synod to declare Pul-
pit and Altar Fellowship with the American Lutheran
Church, and

3) that the District declare that it feel conscience-
bound to proceed with Selective Fellowship should Synod
fail to declare Fellowship in Denver, 1969.

The Southeastern District took the action requested
in the first two resolves. The third resolve was set
aside out of consideration for the synodical President’s
requests that no “pressure tactics” or “threatening reso-
lutions” be submitted to Synod.

The substance of this circuit resolution still stands.
While it applies technically only to relations with The
ALC, the situation and concern actually applies to the
LCA as well.

Our congregation asks: 1. Does the Synod maintain
that in such a situation it is God’s will that the effective-
ness and influence of our work in the area should be
disturbed or hazarded by the scandal of a divided Lu-
theranism (simply because somewhere beyond our area
some fellow-Lutherans of all three Synods don’t agree
as we do)?

2. And does the Synod maintain that in a matter of
conscience, our congregation should be guided by the
resolutions of a synodical convention rather than by
what to us is the manifest will of Christ for our situa-
tion?

It is our conviction that the Synod in convention at
Denver should at least recognize the principle of selec-
tive fellowship with LCA congregations. We are con-
science-bound to practice such fellowship.

Tue LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION
Charlotte, N.C.
D. A. WARNICKE, Secretary

(3-43)

To Refrain from Selective Fellowship

Whereas, The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
has always recognized the dangers inherent in the prac-
tice of selective fellowship; and

Wuereas, The last convention of the Synod again
reiterated the position of the Synod on selective fellow-
ship:

A. WHEREAS, On the one hand, the congregations and
members of the Synod join in renouncing unionism and
syncretism of every description, such as:

a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as
such, by ministers of the church;

b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites
of heterodox congregations or of congregations of
mixed confession. (Constitution of The Lutheran
Church —Missouri Synod, Article VI, 2, a, b)
therefore be it

Resolved, That we refrain from selective pulpit fel-
lowship with “heterodox congregations or . . . congrega-
tions of mixed confession”; and

B. WueEreaS, On the other hand, all congregations and
members of the Synod have voluntarily united for “the
conservation and promotion of the unity of the true faith
(Eph.4:3-6; 1Cor.1:10) and a united defense against
schism and sectarianism (Rom.16:17)” (op. cit., Article
It, 1); and

Wuereas, Efforts are accordingly now being made
within Lutheranism to enter into fellowship on the basis
of Scripture and the Confessions, and this fellowship
ought not be endangered by anticipating it; and

Whereas, The practice of selective pulpit fellowship
would create problems and disharmony in the Synod;
therefore be it