LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 176

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

176 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

manifesting their unity in Christ externally. Forbearing one another in

love, they are eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of

peace on the basis of agreement in the confession of the faith through

which they have already been made one in Christ. (p. 40)

This necessary connection between the church’s internal and
external unity can be explained by the manner in which faith be-
comes manifest in love:

’ There is an inner dynamic to faith in Jesus Christ which works to-
ward an external unity embracing all those who confess faith in Jesus
Christ (1 Cor. 1:10). What the church is by God’s design is what He
wants the church to show itself to be—one—so that “the world may be-
lieve” (John 17:21).

The Scriptures, therefore, exhort Christians to manifest the unity
which has already been given them by virtue of their incorporation into
the body of Christ. St. Paul writes: “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord,
beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been
called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one
another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace” (Eph. 4:1-3). Those who have been grafted into Him who is the
true vine are to bear the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Having been in-
corporated by Baptism into the body of Christ, they should manifest
love for the fellow members of His body. Love for the brethren, writes
St. John, is evidence that we have “passed out of death into life” (1 John
3:14; cf. Eph. 5:2). This external unity, although involving human ef-
forts, is also a gift from God.

To the extent that love controls their conduct, Christians seek fel-
low believers in Jesus Christ in order to build them up and to be built up
them (Rom. 1:11-12). Love rejoices with those who rejoice, it weeps
with those who weep (Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 12-13). It works to
strengthen the weak, encourage the strong, and admonish the erring
(Gal. 6:1—2). Above all, it seeks to help fellow believers remain faithful
to Christ and to His Word. This love may in certain situations lead
members of the church to separate themselves from fellow Christians
and even to exercise church discipline, although it be with many tears
(1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:4). (Ibid., pp. 11-12)

In other words, fellowship is an unseen reality far exceeding
any mere mental concept. Fellowship is also an external reality far
more substantial than any abstracted philosophical nature. This ex-
ternal reality is no secondary aspect of fellowship, for God creates
and sustains faith (the “spiritual”) through external means—the
Word proclaimed by a visible preacher and the administration of
tangible sacraments. Once created and sustained, that invisible faith
becomes manifest as God moves Christians in faith to act in love
toward one another and all people. A significant implication of the
reality of fellowship is that loving Christians will actually disci-
pline one another, in love, and may even separate in order to avoid
visibly denying or departing from this invisible reality. TTMBO can
be understood as one effort to describe how that spiritual fellow-
ship becomes manifest in the external behavior of one fellowship of
Christians “walking together’—The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod.

TTMBO’s declaration that fellowship with heterodox church
bodies “destroys fellowship with Christ, Who insists that we teach
all things that He has commanded us” appears completely consis-
tent with these statements from past CTCR reports. Yet the CTCR
insists: “This statement is misleading and confusing, for it suggests,
without qualification, that church fellowship with heterodox
churches destroys the unity of the church, the body of Christ.” The
word destroys may conjure images of pulverization more complete
than the writers of TTMBO intended, but how can the CTCR main-
tain that mixing heresy with orthodoxy introduces no destructive
effect to the Body of Christ? Heretics attack the foundation of the
church, and when we fail to instruct erring Christians to avoid
them, those Christians may fall victim to these attacks, to their own
destruction.’ It is certain that the invisible unitas of the Body is
Christ’s creation, which no human can create or destroy. But
church fellowship with the heterodox embraces teachings that
strike against one’s own fellowship with Christ. To reject Christ’s
Word is to reject Him.

Second, the CTCR objects that TTMBO has not adequately de-
fined a “civic event” (a task yet to be completed by the CTCR it-
self). This objection misses the point: While TTMBO never defines
what a “‘civic event” is, it clearly states (at least in part) what a civic
event is not. In fact, TTMBO employs the CTCR’s own definition:
it is not a worship service. It draws a straightforward conclusion

from that definition: “events” at which false gods are worshiped
cannot be considered merely “civic.” A marriage ceremony can be
a “civic event.” When the event includes worship, that fact (and
the One or ones worshiped) becomes the primary concern. “To
make a clear confession of the Gospel” at a civic event, says
TTMBO, only prayers to the triune God may be used. This is cru-
cial no matter what definition of “civic event” one might employ.
As the 1943 edition of Luther’s Small Catechism clearly explained:
“Prayer is an act of worship” (CPH; p. 146).

Third, the CTCR complains that the question of “joint” prayer
should have been addressed.’ In fact, TTMBO spoke very directly
to the question of whether Christians can “join in prayer” with un-
believers (without ever using the term “joint prayer”). It clearly
states: “We do not speak of prayer services ... but strictly of prayer
itself.” Within the CTCR’s criticism at this point lies a subtle con-
cession that might easily be missed: The term “civic events” was
abandoned to speak of “public events” instead. This reflects a fact
established above: When leaders of different faiths offer prayers at
a “public event,” the notion that it remains strictly “civic” becomes
increasingly difficult to sustain. The CTCR suggests (to preserve
this notion?) that leaders of a public event could make it clear that
the prayers offered there are not “joint” prayers. Since worship is
properly the concern of the church and not the state, this would
seem to confuse the distinct responsibilities of the two kingdoms.

Fourth, the CTCR takes issue with TTMBO’s “condemnations
and/or rejections” by suggesting that these show insufficient char-
ity toward opposing views. Claiming the mantle of charity for it-
self, the Commission proceeds to express disbelief that “every per-
son who regards the Yankee Stadium event as a civic affair” would
accept any of the views condemned. This presumption seems more
naive than charitable, but the Commission’s evident agreement that
these views are in fact unacceptable is welcome. Once again, this
would seem to leave defenders of the Yankee Stadium event rely-
ing completely upon the notion that it was an exclusively civic af-
fair. The Commission itself puts a rather poor construction on this
section by inferring a sarcastic swipe (“If the shoe fits, wear it”)
nowhere else stated and adding that it is “not sufficient” to list the
views alone. Does the Commission here insist that those who con-
demn false teaching must always name names and file charges?
This is hardly charitable. Can theological statements not be con-
sidered on their own merits? The Commission should encourage
efforts to focus the debate on teachings rather than on targeting in-
dividual personalities. Gratuitous insults should have no place in
CTCR documents, and the Commission does not enhance its cred-
ibility by extending charity to only one side of the debate.

Fifth and finally, the CTCR takes TTMBO to task for presenting
“little by way of specific and sustained argumentation based on
scriptural and confessional texts.” Yet a comparison of 7TMBO with
the first 20 Articles of the Augsburg Confession, with C. F. W.
Walther’s Theses on Church and Ministry, or with the CTCR’s own
critique indicates that TTMBO quotes more Scripture than any of
them.* In theological terms, the CTCR seems here to demand an
apology for this confessional statement. In fact, 7TMBO merely pre-
sents a series of theses, stating a position without apology while cit-
ing Scripture, Creeds, and Confessions in numerous places. The bur-
den falls to those who disagree with that position to demonstrate its
inconsistency with Scripture or Confessions by providing the con-
trary citations. This the Commission has not done. “Sustained argu-
mentation” would require a separate and longer document than
TTMBO, and with this critique the CTCR has invited that argument.

Conclusion

Is the CTCR’s critique “clear”? Is it “adequate’’? It does not
seem to measure up to the standards it sought to apply to TTMBO.
The Commission insists upon “‘sustained argumentation” with more
“scriptural and confessional texts,” but then failed to provide its
own.

I can join the rest of the Commission in commending the “‘pas-
tors and others in the Synod who have offered written contributions
to the ongoing conversation concerning these controverted issues.”
But I must ask: When will this discussion reach a conclusion? How
will we recognize the truth in these matters if not by the clear