LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 62

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

62

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

Our two seminary faculties each prepared a response,
which was then printed and sent throughout the world to
all Lutheran churches along with a copy of the book entitled Justification and Rome. These materials continue to
receive much attention and are some of the most frequently downloaded documents on our Synod’s Web site. I
have included a copy of our seminaries’ responses to the
JDDJ elsewhere in this workbook.
Another way our Synod’s position was presented was
by placement of a full-page statement in USA Today and
15 large national daily newspapers around the country.
The statement clarified our Synod’s position on the Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, clearly indicating our willingness to discuss these issues and dialogue
on them with the Roman Catholic Church, but also indicating that the JDDJ does not speak for all Lutherans and
in fact is a significant departure from the teaching of
God’s Word and therefore the historic Lutheran position.
For the most part, the newspaper statement was positively received both within our Synod and throughout the
country. Even people who do not agree with our position
indicated that they admired the fact that our Synod spoke
about what we believe and why we believe it.
I also asked our seminaries to respond to the significant Lutheran/Anglican agreement titled the “Porvoo
Statement.” The seminary response is also included as an
appendix in the Workbook. Concordia Theological Seminary responded to my request of both seminaries to provide a response as well to the ELCA’s “Formula of Agreement,” that document by which they entered into full
Communion with three Reformed church bodies.
I want here to thank our two seminary systematics departments for their very significant theological work and
for making it possible for our Synod to speak so clearly on
these very critical and key issues. Our Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations prepared study
guides for each of these responses to these key ecumenical
developments.
Contacts with Other Lutherans in the USA

I have throughout the past triennium met informally
once a year or so with the presidents of the Wisconsin
Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical
Lutheran Synod. These meetings are simply opportunities
for us to share information about one another’s church
bodies and to simply maintain an informal contact with
one another. While we clearly recognize that church fellowship between our churches is not possible, we do find
that there are common concerns and issues that we can
discuss. The meetings are always very cordial, and one
senses that in spite of our differences, there is still a very
strong common bond of concern for Lutheranism in our
nation and around the world. These meetings continue to
be a good source for information and maintaining official,
contact with both the WELS and the ELS. The WELS and
ELS are comfortable only with this type of contact at this
point, and we must respect their wishes here.
We also had a chance during the past triennium to
meet with the leadership of the American Association of
Lutheran Churches. This group consists primarily of for200l Convention Proceedings

mer congregations of the American Lutheran Church and
congregations that did not participate in the merger of
three churches that produced the ELCA. We share with
them a very high view of the authority of Scripture,
though we find ourselves differing with them over the
issue of the charismatic movement and various other aspects of Lutheran doctrine and practice. Again, the meeting was a helpful way simply to maintain contact and discuss those areas where we do find ourselves in agreement,
such as the Scriptures, the centrality of justification, and
sanctity of life issues. I am sure that we will be able to
meet again in the future, and I look forward to the relationship between our two churches moving ahead.
Contacts with the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America

I need to report to the Synod that I pursued establishing a series of formal theological discussions between our
Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
which dovetailed very nicely with the 1998 Synod convention’s resolution calling for such meetings. As a result,
three two-day meetings were held with representatives of
the ELCA. As you know, our two church bodies are far
apart when it comes to some of even the most significant
truths of God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions. We
cannot help but view this reality with profound sadness
and regret. Many of us have friends and even family members in the ELCA. Consequently, we continue to watch
with growing dismay as the ELCA slips further and further away from genuine Lutheranism.
In order to express our heartfelt concerns in a formal
way and in more depth than we have been able to do for
many years, I contacted Bishop George Anderson and proposed a series of meetings involving representatives of our
two church bodies. I appointed Pastor Carl Fickenscher,
Dr. Ronald Feuerhahn, Dr. Raymond Hartwig, Dr. Robert
Kuhn, Professor Kurt Marquart, Dr. Samuel Nafzger, Pastor Harold Senkbeil, Dr. James Voelz, and Dr. William
Weinrich to attend these discussions. Three series of meetings were held, the most recent concluding last fall. At
each meeting, representatives at the meeting presented
papers. The subjects discussed included the LCMS perspective on the ELCA’s ecumenical agreements, our response to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and other such matters.
During the final meeting there was acknowledgment
from both the LCMS and the ELCA that church fellowship
between our two churches is simply impossible. The
LCMS indicated to the ELCA that in light of its theological direction we cannot consider them to be an orthodox
Lutheran church body, and they expressed their feeling
that precisely because we do not agree with their ecumenical agreements they regard us in a similar manner.
While this probably goes without saying, it was good formally to acknowledge and recognize this reality in a formal context, for sometimes it is suggested both within and
outside of our Synod that the differences between our two
churches are not really of great significance, when in fact
they are.