LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 341

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Therefore cooperative effort is largely pragmatic in nature, allowing greater efficiencies and
economies of scale.
Such concerns, however, require the proviso that cooperative efforts in Christian care can be
considered only “where the faith and confession of the church are not compromised.”16
Cooperative work can be done only “to the extent that the Word of God and conscience will
allow.” The church’s efforts in care for those in need may not cloud or compromise the church’s
faith, or go against the Word of God and conscience. This proviso is determinative. Cooperative
efforts are always toward goals, and only the Word of God and the Christian conscience can
determine those goals. In individual life this is the case—the Christian person can cooperate with
his neighbor in many things, but not in sin, not in denial of the Gospel, not in anything that is
contrary to God’s Word or a conscience shaped by the Holy Scriptures. That is all the more the
case for a Christian church existing in an era of extreme moral confusion where an unrestricted
tolerance is frequently suggested as the highest (and only) good (or, conversely, when the Gospel
is undermined by moralism). Christian understanding of a necessary good that must be done is
based on God’s revelation, both in the eternal law written on the human heart (Rom 2:15) and,
more specifically, in the unerring truth of God’s Word. Nothing other than the truth of God may
determine the legitimacy of a cooperative endeavor. Any endeavor that questions or
compromises His truth is forbidden to the Church.17
In summary, Synod has endorsed the concept of cooperation in externals, by which we mean the
possibility of working with Christians with whom we are not in church fellowship. Cooperation
in externals requires a common goal or an agreed purpose which is consistent and consonant
with the objectives, doctrine and practice of the Synod. No external cooperative work may in any
way compromise or imply a disagreement with Synod’s teaching and practice (and therefore may
not contradict Holy Scripture or the scripturally-formed Christian conscience).
Further Theological Criteria
In addition to this central principle of cooperation with theological integrity, “Theological
Implications” also considers the development of further principles, especially with respect to the
ELCA:
We cannot dictate the exact direction(s) various cooperative relationships will take in the
future, primarily because the nature of agreements between ELCA and LCMS congregations
and entities varies on a case-by-case basis. Frank and serious discussion on this issue needs
to continue on various levels so that convictions and beliefs are not compromised and that
worthy projects, activities, and relationships between our church and others may continue
wherever possible. We urge LCMS participants in such cases to make decisions about
whether to continue involvement on the basis of the principles we have discussed. We also
suggest the following questions for consideration in making these decisions:

16

Theology of Fellowship, 28, online 43.
“Theological Implications” cites a specific example where theological integrity requires a cooperative endeavor to
end in the case of an agency that adopts a policy of supporting the adoption of children by homosexual couples. See
“Placing Adopted Children into Homosexual Contexts” (2006) at http://www.lcms.org/pages/?NavID=10096.
17

1. Is the purpose of the joint work fully consistent with the positions, policies and objectives
of the Synod?
2. Do cooperative efforts imply doctrinal unity with the ELCA or endorsement of ELCA
positions on same-sex relationships or other matters of disagreement with the LCMS?
3. Does the joint agency or organization distinguish itself as an entity from the churches that
support it?
4. Are all the policies and programs of the organization consonant with the doctrinal
position of the LCMS?
5. Do the individuals who lead the organization openly support and encourage efforts,
positions, or policies which compromise the theological stance of the Synod?
We urge LCMS participants to answer such questions as these and to make decisions about
whether to continue involvement on the basis of the principles we have discussed.
Case-by-case
Two parts of this section of “Theological Implications” are important. First, while the operative
principle of cooperation only with theological integrity is absolutely clear, the great variety of
human care organizations and efforts necessitates a case-by-case approach in evaluating them.
There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to the different organizations that Synod recognizes
currently in the general sphere of mercy ministries. Some involve no inter-church cooperation
and are solely staffed, administered, and governed by LCMS personnel. Others may have few or
even no LCMS personnel in any form of leadership or policy-making. Some involve significant
LCMS involvement and resources, others very little. Some organizations carefully and
cautiously design their policies and programs in order to prevent any doctrinal compromise.
Others may be administered with little care or concern for theology. There is great variety in the
purposes and goals of RSO’s, in how they are funded, governed, and staffed. The fact is that no
two RSO’s are identical. Individual Districts of the LCMS will, of necessity, need to be an
integral part to decisions that are made regarding the RSO’s with which they relate.
Five factors
Second, “Theological Implications” offers five questions for use in a principled, case-by-case
approach to cooperative efforts. The questions deal with (1) the purpose or goal of a cooperative
effort; (2) possible false implications of doctrinal unity and agreement between the ELCA and
LCMS; (3) clear demarcation of the RSO as an entity independent from its supporting churches;
(4) consistency of RSO policies with LCMS teaching; (5) possible confusion between the beliefs
and stances of organizational leaders and the organization itself.
Additional Clarification
These additional principles may be further clarified as examples of where the church might
consider cooperative work and also where it must cease such work.
First, the all-important question for any organized effort involving the church is whether the
intended purpose or goal is God-pleasing. As obvious as this is, it must still be asserted. The
godly necessity of providing Christian counseling to help married couples resolve conflict in a
God-pleasing way is clear. Just as clear, however, is the fact that a Christian church must never

5

6

engage in efforts to provide counseling that encourages un-scriptural divorce. Yet, why do we
say these are both “clear”? Such a value judgment can be made only on the basis of the authority
of Scripture and orthodox theology. The following are further reflections in this regard:
•
•

•

•

The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament—are the final authority for all church
teaching, including the determination of what is and is not a “good work.”
This does not indicate a “Biblicist” approach, however. Scripture provides a normative
role in the question of good works, but it also points beyond itself in an important way
toward a “ministerial use” of conscience and human reason in considering moral
questions. The Lutheran Confessions and orthodox Lutheran tradition will also provide
necessary guidance.
Christian theology has consistently accepted the teaching variously referred to as “natural
law” or, as Luther also describes it, “one law which runs through all ages.”18 Romans 1
and 2 affirm that a certain knowledge of the truth is ours “by nature,” written on the
human heart. But Paul also notes that in a fallen world moral judgments are always
potentially fallible and so we cannot dispense with the normative standards of Scripture.
Theological assumptions underlying an organizational goal are also relevant. For
example, an organization might engage in a laudable “social ministry” because it holds
that such ministry—not the proclamation of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ—is the
primary ministry of the church. A cooperative endeavor in that instance risks the integrity
of the Gospel itself since a “Social Gospel” has been substituted for the genuine Gospel
of forgiveness, life, and salvation by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:6-9).

•

•

•

It is important—for the sake of truth—that in cooperative efforts there be a clear
understanding between the sponsoring churches in the formation of principles and
policies for the organization.
The organization must be responsive to the concerns and beliefs of the LCMS (and any
other cooperating entity), and, as such, ought clearly to articulate and distinguish between
the areas of agreement which enable cooperation and acknowledge the reality of
disagreements between cooperating entities which also exist.
This does not discount the fact that we may also be able to affirm additional areas of
theological concord (e.g., two Lutheran bodies who can affirm that the work they are

18
See Luther’s Galatians (1519), AE 27:355 where he says: “Therefore there is one law which runs through all
ages, is known to all men, is written in the hearts of all people, and leaves no one from beginning to end with an
excuse, although for the Jews ceremonies were added and the other nations had their own laws, which were not
binding upon the whole world, but only this one, which the Holy Spirit dictates unceasingly in the hearts of all.” See
also AE 40:96-97. Luther is referring to natural Law (see also Large Catechism II:96-99, KW 440).

7

engaged in is based on the motivating principal of faith in Christ, active in love rather
than a theology of merit; agreement in confessional subscription; mutual creedal
agreement).
Organizational events or ceremonies must not involve public worship and neither the
LCMS nor the ELCA (or any other church with which we might be cooperating apart
from a relationship of altar and pulpit fellowship) ought to imply that the joint effort fully
represents its confession of faith in all articles.

Third, the corollary to the previous stipulation is that a cooperatively supported RSO ought to
have a distinct identity from either the LCMS or the ELCA (or other church/church body). The
Handbook describes RSO’s as “independent of the Synod.” They must also be independent of
the ELCA. While both church bodies are free to support the ministry of the RSO, both are also
free to withdraw support, so the ministry is “owned” by neither. This, of course, also means that
an RSO must have a clear theological rationale and purpose that “fosters the mission and
ministry of the church.”19 This suggests such considerations as the following:
•
•
•

Second, cooperative efforts with another church ought to be engaged in with a clear
understanding that agreement in the purpose of the particular organization does not imply
agreement in all areas of doctrine and practice. When two churches cooperate in feeding the
hungry, for example, it is appropriate to understand that both are motivated by a common
understanding that care for the needy is in keeping with God’s will—this is agreement in a
teaching of God’s Law. But some may assume that the two churches are also in agreement about
others issues when that is not the case. With respect to avoiding false implications of unity,
consideration should be given to various organizational matters, such as:
•

341

•
•

Leadership of the organization in question ought to have a clear understanding that its
rationale and programmatic decisions will be direct factors in LCMS endorsement and
involvement.
It is preferable that such an organization not be portrayed as an arm or entity of the
LCMS, ELCA, or other churches, but as a distinct organization with clearly focused goals
and purposes.
The Synod will evaluate whether those distinctive goals and purposes are in harmony
with our theology.
It is possible that in some cases an organization may no longer have any clear identity or
purpose.
It is also possible that in an effort to maintain a distinct identity, an organization loses its
identity as a specifically Christian (and Lutheran) entity. For example, just as the YMCA
is no longer a “Christian association” in any recognizable way, so also a “Lutheran social
service agency” always runs the risk of losing any “Lutheran” element to its identity, and
becoming just one more “social service organization.”

Fourth, since we are considering organizations with very direct, practical purposes—specific
“good works”—it is necessary that the implementation of the organization’s goals and the steps it
takes toward those goals be examined. Both goals and implementation must be consistent with
Lutheran theology. The activities, policies, and practices of organizations must be evaluated. For
example:
•
•

19

An organization may have evolved over time and no longer directly addresses the need
that led to its creation and to LCMS support.
A board of directors may have little or no representation from the Synod and may be
unaware of or unsupportive of LCMS beliefs.

6.2.1, Handbook, 200.

8

2013 Convention Workbook