LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 87

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

2. Church Fellowship and the Gospel
It was October 1529 and two of the great men of the Reformation were meeting in Marburg in Germany to consider the issues that separated them. Their names were Ulrich Zwingli of Zurich and Martin Luther, the great
reformer himself. At stake in these discussions was, at the
time, a military alliance for the protection of the Reformation from its foes. But ultimately, this meeting would determine whether there would be one united Protestant
church or two—maybe even more.1
The discussions between Luther and Zwingli and the
other theologians present were intense but honest and thorough; and when after four days the talks were finished,
they signed a document consisting of 15 doctrinal articles
that treated the important issues of the day. On 14 and a
half of the 15 articles, there was agreement, but not on the
last part of the last article. They could not agree on the real
presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli said no;
but Luther insisted, “Yes!” for our Lord had spoken, “This is
My body.”2
It was a momentous disagreement. The breech between
the two men was permanent, as also between their
churches. Lutheran and Reformed would proceed along different paths right down until the present. They would not
preach the Gospel together. They would not celebrate the
sacrament together. There would be no church fellowship.
But why? Especially when there was so much agreement? And why should we in The Lutheran Church Missouri—Synod today perpetuate the consequences of that
Marburg meeting so many centuries later? And what’s
more, why do we insist on exhibiting the same attitude not
only toward the Reformed but also the Catholics, the
Methodists, and all the rest? These questions have become
increasingly urgent in our own times, especially since many
other branches of the Lutheran Church, both here and
abroad, have decided to enter into fellowship with nonLutheran groups like the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and
the United Church of Christ.3 So what is going on here?
And why does the LCMS take such a different approach?
The answer is actually not too difficult; and to put it as
simply as possible: for us, it is a question of truth, biblical
truth, scriptural truth. We believe that there is such a
thing and that this truth matters.
In previous eras, such a statement would hardly be necessary. It went without saying that there was such a thing
as the truth even and especially in religious matters. You
could express the truth in words and people would either
nod their heads and say, yes, that’s right or else disagree
and say, that’s wrong, that’s false, it is not the truth.
But that’s not how it is today. Largely, I suppose, because we live in a pluralistic society with all kinds of religious beliefs and attitudes, we mute the idea of truth, preferring instead to talk about “opinion.” That’s your opinion,
we say, and here’s mine. And thereby we suggest that one’s
view of religion is just as good or true as another’s; and
even if in our heart of hearts, we still think that ours is the
right one and the other fellow’s wrong, well, it’s still not
87

worth fighting about. Let’s just live and let live instead of
arguing about the truth.
So we live in a society where tolerance is a principal
virtue, perhaps the only virtue left in America. And it is
considered very bad form—bad manners, really—to insist
that something is true and its opposite false or to maintain
that this is right but that is wrong. Instead, there is no
moral center—no absolute right or wrong, no real truth. So
people who espouse strong beliefs make us uncomfortable,
and we dismiss them as zealots and fanatics. For us in
modern America today, religion and morality ought to be
private and personal. Best keep them to yourself; don’t talk
about them; but if you do, be tolerant of the other person’s
point of view. For tolerance is more important than the
truth.
Now, such an approach may be necessary for getting
along in 21st-century America; but is it compatible with authentic Christianity? And can we make tolerance a substitute for commitment to truth in the Christian Church,
whose founder once proclaimed, “I am the Way and the
Truth and the Life” (John 14:6)? 4 I don’t think so; in fact, I
know we can’t, and you know it too.
Right from the beginning it was built into the definition
of the term “Christian” to confess the truth—the truth
about God, about sin, about the Savior, about Jesus. That’s
why our services include creeds, statements of what we believe. That’s why confirmation is preceded by instruction
classes and communicant membership is based on commitment to Luther’s catechism.5 To be a Christian means to believe something—and not just in your heart, but also to
speak it with your lips, to confess the truth. As St. Paul
says, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and
200l Convention Proceedings