LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 343

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
fellowship in sacred things” (communio in sacris) and “cooperation in externals”
(cooperatio in externis). The former term pertains to the highest and deepest kind of
communion or fellowship, namely, the joint use of the means of grace, while the latter
refers to matters that are not directly related to the proclamation of the Word and
administration of the sacraments, i.e., external to the use of the means of grace. As useful
as this distinction is in principle (because it is made on the basis of the means of grace), it
is nevertheless subject to considerable confusion because of the term externals. That a
given activity is external to the use of the means of grace does not mean we are to regard
such an activity as necessarily optional or to be excluded from the church’s calling. For
instance, cooperation in caring for refugees may not involve the joint use of Word and
sacraments, but this certainly in no way diminishes the importance of such common work
as a fitting response to the Lord’s command to love our neighbor. Additionally, we must
recognize that not all Christian activities fit neatly into one or the other category. With
that understanding, however, measuring proposed activities in terms of their relationship
to the means of grace remains central to a confessional Lutheran approach to questions of
inter-Christian relationships.27

Later the same document states:
Similarly, a wide variety of programs and resources have been developed within the
Synod (and in cooperation with other Lutheran churches) addressing the problems of
poverty, human suffering, settlement of immigrants and refugees, and “war and peace”
issues. Such programs and resources allow members of the Synod to focus intentionally
on these issues on the basis of Scriptural principles, while leaving necessary room for
individual Christians to form their own opinions about the wisdom of specific
governmental policies and to make decisions about personal involvement in ecclesial
and/or social efforts and activities in these areas.29
In 1999 the CTCR published the report Faith Active in Love: Human Care in the Church’s Life.
Once again the principle of cooperation in externals with theological integrity was articulated.
Under the heading, “The Need for Flexibility,” the document states:
History shows great variety in the way the church organizes for Christian care, a variety
that depends in part on the social circumstances in which the church is working. Those
gathered together to bring God’s Word to both believers and unbelievers will participate
together also in works of mutual care and love toward those outside the church. In
restoring our relationship to God, God’s Word frees us for energetic Christian care. Much
Christian care is lived out in the believers’ daily work, but some forms of care are more
effectively carried out as Christians work together with other Christians. Working
together seems especially necessary when distortion or corruption in the established
orders of creation make it difficult for Christians to act individually to provide human
care.

Once again, in 1995, in its consideration of the relationship of church and state, the Commission
provided some historical perspective on the idea of “cooperation in externals.” It also noted
concerns about potential confusion due to the terminology.
The gradual agreement on social welfare in the mid-20th century among the leadership of
American Lutheran churches led to frequent contacts and cooperation among Lutheran
church bodies. A major factor in this cooperation was the problem of interface with the
new governmental welfare agencies that arose in the 1930s. In Chicago, on Nov. 17,
1936, new ground was broken in inter-Lutheran cooperation when the Lutheran Church
Charities Committee was formed, representing six synods, including the Missouri Synod.
The technical term used in the Missouri Synod for such a joint effort is “cooperation in
externals.” Yet those supporting the emerging view of social ministry were quick to point
out that “the welfare ministry itself was by no means an external matter to the Christian
faith and the life of the church; it was an essential sign of the presence of divine grace
and the necessary fruit that grew from the root of faith.”
After the mergers of 1960 and 1962, which had created the American Lutheran Church
(ALC) and the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) respectively, a new organization of
Lutheran cooperation to replace the National Lutheran Council became operational in
1967. This time the Missouri Synod, already cooperating with the National Lutheran
Council in Lutheran World Relief, Lutheran Service Commission, and Lutheran
Immigration Service, was a member. The new agency was called the Lutheran Council in
the United States of America (LCUSA) and was chartered with two main purposes:
theological discussion and cooperation in specified areas of Christian service. All
participating bodies were required to take part in the theological discussion, but each
could choose whether or not to participate in other areas of activity. One of those areas of
cooperative work was the Office of Government Affairs in Washington, D.C.28

343

Christians can also organize to work together with Christians in other traditions and with
non-Christians in caring institutions of society. To be sure, Christians most happily and
comfortably cooperate with those who share their confession. But just as individual
Christians cooperate in and with the social structures where God has placed them, so
Christians organized in specific social structures can also cooperate in and with other
social and governmental structures for the care of neighbors in need. Again, churches are
likely to cooperate especially in the voluntary and special social structures that spring up
in response to needs not met by currently established structures in society. Such
cooperation with others, either as individuals or in various social structures, need not
compromise the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.
Cooperative endeavors of this kind, when they do not compromise the proclamation of
God’s Word, can be simply the living out of love that springs from a living faith.
However, when other individuals or communities advocate policies and programs that are
contrary to the guidance given in the Scriptures, great care should be taken by Christians
not to cooperate in ways that compromise the proclamation of God’s Word.30
29

Ibid., 81.
Faith Active in Love (February 1999), 27. The report is available in print and also online at
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/faith.pdf. Faith Active in Love reminds us that such principles of
care for those in need and the priority of Gospel proclamation and purity of confession are both necessary aspects of
30

27
28

CTCR, Inter-Christian Relationships: An Instrument for Study (2000), 16-17.
CTCR, Render Unto Caesar… and Unto God: A Lutheran View of Church and State (1995), 50.

13

14

It is evident that a consistent understanding is at work regarding both cooperation with others—
from cooperating with groups or structures in society to cooperating with other churches—in
caring for people in need. Wherever such cooperative work enables us to respond effectively
toward those in need, it is considered. Such cooperative endeavor, however, is always restricted
by the proviso that it may not compromise the truth of God’s Word. As a consequence of this
understanding the LCMS has engaged in a variety of cooperative relationships with other church
bodies on international, national, and local levels. However, the proviso that such relationships
not compromise God’s truth requires that the LCMS carefully examine its cooperative endeavors
with a church body that has clearly departed from that truth.

the church’s life. It also points out that the church’s care for those in need tends to follow one of two “contrasting
lines of thought.” The first line of thought emphasizes the need for a more organized, corporate, and cooperative
dimension to the church’s care for those in need. The second emphasizes that such care should primarily take place
individual efforts, as Christians are active in their vocations. Rather than opposing these dimensions, Faith Active in
Love indicates how both are needed. (See 12-26; Render Unto Caesar raises a similar concern.)

15

2013 Convention Workbook