LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 172

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

172 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

urgent necessity demands that in the presence of so many intru-
sive errors, aggravated scandals, dissentions, and long-standing
schisms a Christian explanation and reconciliation of all of the
disputes which have arisen come into being . . . so that the way
may not be left free and open to restless, contentious individuals,
who do not want to be bound to any certain formula of pure doc-
trine, to start scandalous controversies at will” (emphasis added;
Pref. to Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 13). Because controver-
sies always “involve serious offense” for the weak in faith, some
of whom “will doubt if the pure doctrine can coexist among us
with such divisions, while others will not know which of the
contending parties they should support . . . necessity requires
that such controverted articles be explained on the basis of
God’s Word and of approved writings” (502-503:710) in order
that “a correct explanation and direction might be provided for
simple and pious hearts, so that they might know what attitude
to take toward these differences” (Pref. Book of Concord, Tap-
pert, p. 6). The Formula of Concord was written to give a public
testimony not only to those then living, but also to posterity con-
cerning that which is and must remain the position of our
churches with reference to the controverted issues (FC SD An-
titheses, 16—German) because the fathers did not want it to
happen that “nothing beyond uncertain opinions and dubious,
disputable imaginations and views will be transmitted to further
generations” (Pref. Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 13). On the
contrary, they earnestly desired “that a pure declaration of the
truth might be transmitted to . . . posterity” and therefore they
exercised great care that “the Christian doctrine set forth in
[their] explanation . . . might be fortified with the Word of God
against all sorts of perilous misunderstanding, so that no adul-
terated doctrine might in the future be hidden thereunder.” (Pref.
Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 7)

Melanchthon asked the church of his day a question which
the LCMS should ponder well in these trying times: “How many
do you think there are . . . who have begun to doubt because of
the controversies that have arisen on the most important ques-
tions? How much silent indignation is there because you refuse
to examine these questions and adjudge them rightly, because
you do not strengthen wavering consciences . . . ?” (201:127)

Through the centuries the following words of admonition
and warming ought to strike our ears and hearts in all the earnest-
ness with which they were originally addressed by Melanchthon
to a decadent church in the 16th century: “In these very serious
and difficult controversies the people desperately want instruc-
tion in order to have a sure way to go... . You will some day
have to give account of your stewardship.” (281-—282:4—5)

Resolution

Resolved, That the Synod recognize it as fully in accord with
precedent established by our fathers both in the period immedi-
ately following the Reformation and in the early years of our
Synod’s history to produce and adopt statements of doctrine
which apply the teachings of Scripture and the Confessions to
controverted issues; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod recognize that the only basis for
the acceptance of such statements is that they are in accord with
Scripture and the pattern of doctrine set forth in the Symbols;
and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm its position (Milwaukee
Proceedings, Res. 2-21 and 5-24) that such statements, insofar
as they are in accord with the Scriptures and the paltern of doc-
trine set forth in the Lutheran Symbols, are, pursuant to Article
II of the Synod’s constitution, binding upon all its members. (Cf.
also Article VII)

Controversies are nothing new to the church. In the Old Testa-
ment there was constant tension between the true prophets of God
and the false prophets who were not true to God’s Word. The apos-
tles of the New Testament faced the same opposition. The first
council, the Apostolic Council (Acts 15) was called to debate the
issue of circumcision. So also throughout her history, the church,
her people and teachers have had to respond to false doctrine. Thus
we have the early ecumenical councils, which responded to false
teaching concerning the person of Jesus, our precious and only Sav-
ior. It was for this reason that the documents of the Book of Con-
cord were drawn together, to make a clear confession of the one
true faith and to respond to error.

The issue is never the sincerity of the teachers, but true doc-
trine. The sincerity of everyone is compromised by original and ac-
tual sin. For this very reason we are called to be faithful to the One
who alone is sincere, Jesus, our Savior. We are to be faithful to
Him in all that He did and continues to do. He calls us to faithful-
ness to Him and all that He teaches, for He alone can and does
gather and preserve us in the one true faith.

Again, controversy has arisen within the LCMS. This contro-
versy affects the whole church and now requires a clear response.
On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our nation. There have been
many responses to these attacks. The vast majority of these re-
sponses have been laudable. They have taken the form of physical
and emotional support. Indeed, constant prayer has been and con-
tinues to be offered on behalf of those who have suffered, those
who have aid continue to provide aid, and those who must lead
and serve in this time of crisis.

However, one response has demonstrated a grave division that
exists within our own church in the issue of unionism and syn-
cretism. That response was “A Prayer for America,” held on Sep-
tember 23, 2001, at Yankee Stadium in New York City and the par-
ticipation of Rev. Dr. David Benke, President of the Atlantic
District.

The event, “A Prayer for America,” was organized by secular
leaders and personalities. Yet it was presented as a service of prayer
for the nation and on behalf of those who have and continue to suf-
fer because of the events of Sept. 11. Participants included both
Christians and non-Christians—Roman Catholics, Baptists, Hin-
dus, Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs. Prayers were offered without a dis-
tinction between true and false religion, without distinction be-
tween the one true God and false gods.

Such an event is to be expected within a free secular society.
But that does not mean that it is appropriate or possible for Chris-
tians to participate. The church prays. She prays for all people, her
own and those outside of the church. She prays because she is the
one true Christian church and she alone has access to the Father.
While she prays for those outside the church, she never prays with
them, for they do not pray. The participation of Rev. Dr. Benke
with the consent of President Kieschnick has highlighted division
within our Synod. It is necessary for us to make a clear statement
concerning syncretism and unionism.

The following document is presented to the 2004 convention of
the LCMS. The resolution at the end is for the purpose of adopt-
ing “That They May Be One” as an official document of the
LCMS.

That They May Be One (John 17:20-21)

We concur with Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions
conceming the following points. With great unanimity we believe,
teach, confess, and, with the help of God, practice the following:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that church fellowship is not
created by our action but is created and sustained by the triune God.
Church fellowship consists in “unity with [one another] in teaching
and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacra-
ments” (FC Ep X 7). This unity is a gift of God, who alone “calls,
gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian Church on
earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith”
(SC II 6). This action of our Lord finds its external expression
wherever the “Gospel is preached harmoniously according to a
pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in confor-
mity with the divine Word” (AC VII 2).

We reject the teaching that Holy Scripture allows us to be
joined in fellowship with heterodox church bodies. Such an action
does not create unity among men but destroys fellowship with
Christ, who insists that we teach all things He has commanded us.

2. We believe, teach, and confess that the triune God gives
church fellowship to His church for her good and for the good of
the world. Christ prays to His Heavenly Father, “Sanctify them in
the truth, Your word is truth . . . that they all may be one, as You,
Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us,
that the world may believe that You sent Me” John 17:17—21). It is