LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 78

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Kid ec aE aI

‘
:
4

78 PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS

also resulted in a kind of uneasy truce between the
various elements in the Synod, and in the establishment
of a joint committee of American Lutheran Church and
Missouri Synod people to discuss issues on which there
was still disagreement between us and to deal with
things which have arisen in subsequent years.

The report of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations gives you many details on these
matters. As President of the Synod, I was an ex-officio
member of the synodical Commission on Fellowship,
which met twice annually with a counterpart commis-
sion from The American Lutheran Church. This com-
mission this year has published for you, at the request of
an earlier convention, a Statement of Differences
between our two churches. The statement is true and
factual. We have not embellished it with any emotion or
any conclusions. We have tried as far as possible simply
to give you the facts.

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations,
after studying the differences and hearing the report of
the Commission on Fellowship, has recommended that
the fellowship be rescinded at the synodical level. The
commission has also attempted in every possible way to
take cognizance of the fact that many people in The
American Lutheran Church are thoroughly orthodox
and confessional and that many fine parish relation-
ships have developed. We are also cognizant of the fact
that we have found a satisfactory way of relating with
the Lutheran Church in America through the Lutheran
Council and that on many levels a salutary and benefi-
cial cooperation has existed and in all propriety should
continue to exist.

I concur with the recommendation of the CTCR and
the floor committee on this matter, but I must say Idoso
with great regret at the prospect of difficulties in our
own midst. As we face the likelihood of merger between
the ALC and LCA becoming more and more a reality,
we recognize that sooner or later Missouri will have to
face the question of fellowship not only with the ALC
but with an entirely new church body. When this merger
is consummated, it would create an entirely new situa-
tion which would then have to be evaluated on the basis
of the new church body, rather than simply the confes-
sional and doctrinal position of The American Lutheran
Church. If we do not face the issue with The American
Lutheran Church now, we will unquestionably have to
face the issue at some later time.

I do not see any possibility of our arriving at
doctrinal agreement at the church body level with The
American Lutheran Church or its successor organiza-
tion, given the present theological climate within
American Lutheranism. We thus will either have to
change our stance on the whole subject of church
fellowship, or reach some kind of accommodation in
which the position of the Synod is upheld but allowing a
certain amount of latitude at the local level, or simply
adopt a resolution calling for more patience, more
discussion, and delay the decision until some later time,
or rescind the fellowship established in 1969.

One of the difficulties with the matter of ALC

‘terians, and other denominations. This makes the

fellowship is the fact that we regard the matter from
many different angles. AsI have said repeatedly, looked
at entirely from the theological standpoint at the church
body level, the differences are great and irreconcilable.
Looked at from the standpoint of the parish pastor who
ministers to people who come to his church or move into
his community, the problem is viewed quite differently.
Nearly all Lutherans have been instructed in Luther’s
Catechism and share essentially the same basic and
fundamental faith—a faith which differs greatly from
that of Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists, Presby-

problem more difficult. The overwhelming rank and file
of both churches do share the faith, learned from
Luther’s Small Catechism. Nor is the matter only one of
cooperation. It seems to me that we are quite dedicated
to a vast range of cooperation among Lutherans and to
a lesser extent with other denominations, a cooperation
which is not premised on the fact that there needs to be
complete agreement in doctrine. Oftentimes it can bea
single-issue cooperation, such as the pro-life movement, .
and things of this kind. So we do not clarify matters by |
confusing interchurch cooperation with church fellow-
ship. oe
An additional factor which is causing a great deal of
confusion as to the timing of a decision on church
fellowship and as to the future course the Synod shall
take, has to do with the fact that it is well-known and :
apparently almost a certainty that the ALC, the AELC,
and the LCA will be entering into a merger. oe

We do not know the precise form that this merger will
take, nor exactly when it will be completed, but it:
appears to be acertainty. When and if this merger takes:
place, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is going °
to be mightily affected. The merger will immediately
affect the structure and activities of the Lutheran:
Council in the U.S.A. The merger will affect the polity of.-;
all parties to that merger. One of the reasons tha
Missouri and the ALC have gotten along so well overs
many years is that we have a very similar polity. If th
polity of the LCA prevails, there will be a great deal.o
difference, causing further cleavage between Missou
and the new church. In other words, there will not onl,
be theological differences, but there will be difference
in the way in which the churches operate. I think iti
axiomatic among all of us that if the ALC joins with thi
LCA, the Missouri Synod will not automatically hav!
fellowship with the new church, but that fellowshi
would have to be renegotiated entirely. We have ha
great difficulties carrying on doctrinal discussions Ww}
the present LCA, in part because of their stance tha!
sufficient doctrinal agreement already exists for thi
practice of church fellowship. If that view prevail
discussions between the Missouri Synod and the ne
church will probably be considerably different ap
possibly even nonexistent. Another factor is tha
throughout North America, Missouri, which has alway.
been the second largest church and had a considerabl
balance of power in inter-Lutheran activities, will no
find itself to be the smaller of the two by almost 50: