LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 344

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

344

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Theological Dialogue with Other Christian Church Bodies
“There is one body and one Spirit” (Eph 4:4)—one Body of Christ, the Father’s only-begotten Son,
created by the gracious work of the one Holy Spirit. This one Body is the Church, that is, all who in
baptismal faith are bound to Christ and to one another (see 1 Cor 1:2). Together with all those through
the ages who confess their faith in the Blessed Trinity, we confess our faith “in one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic Church.” We confess, as an article of faith, this one Church1 (often referred to as the Una
Sancta, based on the Latin version of the Nicene Creed). It is real and true, yet, since it includes only
those who hold to Christ in true faith, it is also a reality that is fully known only to God who “knows the
heart” (Acts 15:8). He alone knows its length and breadth in every age and locale. For this reason, we do
not confess any particular earthly institution as “the Church” per se in this full and creedal sense, even
as we fully affirm the visible and “bodily” reality of the Church.2 To claim that a particular institution
alone is “the Church” would deny that salvation and incorporation into the Body of Christ occurs
through faith and Baptism into Christ, for “we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually
members one of another” (Rom 12:5). The Apology of the Augsburg Confession therefore explains:
[T]he church is not only an association of external ties and rites like other civic organizations,
but it is principally an association of faith and the Holy Spirit in the hearts of persons. It
nevertheless has its external marks so that it can be recognized, namely, the pure teaching of the
gospel and the administration of the sacraments in harmony with the gospel of Christ.3
True unity of faith is thus given in Christ and is no human achievement. It is given by means of the
proclamation of the one Gospel of Christ and that Gospel’s administration in the holy and efficacious
Sacraments. Although the Church’s unity is a gift of God, it can be undermined and damaged by sin, so
the apostle Paul urges the people of God to maintain this unity “in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). To do
so involves both certain character traits (humility, gentleness, patience, and forbearance) and also a
sober maturity that resists shifting doctrinal winds and speaks “the truth in love” (Eph 4:2, 13-15). One
of the primary goals for the confessors at Augsburg was to seek to promote a greater measure of
harmony so that the God-given unity of the Church might be lived out as fully as possible amid human
divisions in the church on earth:

“unity” between churches that in reality hold contradictory beliefs or a united church that disallows the
convictions that formerly had kept the uniting churches apart.
Instead of such an understanding with its predictable results, the church throughout much of its history
followed a much more difficult yet more appropriate course with respect to divisions among believers
and churches. From the apostolic council in Acts 15 to the ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea, 325) to
Reformation era discussions and debates at Augsburg to later efforts that led to the Book of Concord
itself, Christians sought to resolve division by careful theological reflection and discussion, grounded in
the Word of God. Only such a course refused to sacrifice either unity or truth.
In keeping with such an understanding, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) lists as its first
objective that it shall
Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10), work through its
official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united
defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy.5
One way the Synod has sought to “promote unity” and to defend “against schism, sectarianism, and
heresy” has been to engage in conversation and dialogue with other Christian church bodies. The result
has sometimes been the joyful recognition that we share a full and common understanding of Christian
faith and life—full doctrinal agreement. In such cases we have joyfully affirmed this fellowship between
our church and another and rejoiced in the opportunity to open our pulpits to each other’s pastors and to
welcome one another freely at the Lord’s Table.

However, this understanding of the unity of the Church as the Body of Christ must not become the basis
for false conclusions. One such falsely drawn conclusion is the notion that because there is but one
Church, all churches should be organizationally united despite different beliefs. Much of the modern
ecumenical movement has operated on this basis, with the inevitable result of either an ephemeral

At other times the dialogues have not achieved doctrinal unity. Indeed, it would be contrary to the
theology of the cross and to the hidden nature of the church in this world to expect that theological
dialogue will always result in doctrinal agreement or structural accord. 6 Nevertheless, even such
“failed” dialogues have always served a beneficial purpose. Proverbs 27:17 reminds us that “Iron
sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” So also, discussions even with those who in the end
disagree with us, compel us to search the Scriptures, to listen carefully and honestly, and to sharpen and
clarify our confession. Such failures to achieve theological unity are painful and sometimes have
resulted in even greater misunderstanding, especially when those who have strongly upheld the necessity
of doctrinal agreement are accused of having a loveless or proud heart toward other Christians or when
the failure to achieve full agreement blinds participants to whatever measure of unity has been reached.
Walther, in his “Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod,” referred to the example of discussions
between Luther and Bucer in an attempt to resolve differences over the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
Their dialogue failed to achieve complete agreement. Luther could not compromise the truth as he
understood it. Despite the failure, Luther urged against any action that would result in “‘even more

1
Herein we will mark the distinction between the Church in this sense of the Una Sancta fully known only to God by means
of an upper case C. We will refer to the church in the sense of earthly gatherings of Christians (“institutions”) with a lower
case c.
2
This, of course, is worthy of much fuller treatment that cannot be offered in this brief document. Such a treatment would
include discussion of such matters as the confessional apology against the Roman charge that Luther and the Reformers held
to a platonic understanding of the church, the use of “visible” and “invisible” as adjectives to describe the Church, and
Walther’s careful reference to the Evangelical Lutheran church as the “True Visible Church on Earth.”
3
Apology [Ap] VII/VIII, 5; Kolb-Wengert edition, The Book of Concord [KW] (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 174.
4
Augsburg Confession [AC] Preface, 4; KW 30.

5
2010 Handbook: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Constitution, Article III, 1, p. 13.
6
The Church never ceases to be a “little flock” (Luke 12:32) in the world, hidden by all that is so impressive and successful.
See Luther’s comments on the Cain and Abel narrative in Gen. 4 (e.g., Luther’s Works, American Edition [AE], 1:253).
Again, noting Abraham’s fear of Abimelech, Luther reminds us that God “nevertheless has His little church, even though it is
small and hidden” (AE, 3:345).

1

2

Inasmuch as we are all enlisted under one Christ, we are all to live together in one communion
and one church.4

uproar and offense’” and appealed to Bucer to “‘keep the peace [resulting from] the degree [of unity]
that has been reached.’”7
The Synod’s first priority in theological conversation and dialogue has been with other Lutherans.
Dialogues with other Lutheran church bodies were typically focused on a goal of establishing church
fellowship. Shared Lutheran heritage and subscription—at least on some level—to the Lutheran
Confessions heightened the expectation that church fellowship would be a likely outcome. However, the
Synod has also engaged in theological dialogues with non-Lutheran Christians on numerous occasions.
In such cases, discussions began with the recognition of deep, historical divisions between our
respective church bodies—divisions based on significantly different understandings of the Gospel and
biblical teaching and practice. Because of such historical divisions, some have questioned the legitimacy
and value of the LCMS engaging in theological dialogues with such church bodies, since there seems to
be little or no hope of reaching the full doctrinal agreement that would enable altar and pulpit
fellowship.
In reply to that concern, several basic points should be considered:
1) The first objective of the Synod listed in Article III of the Constitution is to “work through its official
structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense against
schism, sectarianism, and heresy.” This objective points in two directions—“toward fellowship” and
away from “schism, sectarianism, and heresy.”
While conversations with a non-Lutheran church body are less likely to result in altar and pulpit
fellowship than those with a like-minded Lutheran church body, they may nevertheless help to provide a
defense against sectarianism since the talks can reveal and emphasize areas that the LCMS and that
church body hold in common. A shared confession of the creeds, for example, stands as an important
testimony against many forms of heresy, even if it does not result in the full agreement necessary for
altar and pulpit fellowship.
2) The bylaws of the LCMS are quite general in giving guidance to the Synod on matters of church
relations when it comes to the role of the President, as chief ecumenical officer, and to that of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) in its responsibility to assist the President as he
carries out his duties in this area. Obviously, constraints of wisdom, prioritization, and budget always
apply to what the Synod will do ecumenically (or in any endeavor), but there is no Synod or CTCR
policy that would restrict or discourage the sort of talks mentioned above.

4) The CTCR's report, A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism (LSTE), has some helpful guidance in
this regard. The first two principles set forth in this report are:
A. Lutherans recognize and rejoice in their oneness with all Christians in the Una Sancta and
regard this unity as the presupposition for continuing ecumenical endeavors throughout
Christendom.
B. Lutherans deplore doctrinal disagreements, religious disputes, and dissensions among
Christians and will not omit doing anything, in so far as God and conscience allow, that may
serve the cause of Christian concord. (AC Preface, 13; FC SD XI, 95)9
These two confessional references are significant. In the Augsburg Confession’s Preface, the confessors
recognize that their efforts to resolve the theological differences in 1530 might “bear no fruit.”
Nevertheless, such an eventuality would not negate the significance of such efforts, but would instead
“give testimony that we are not neglecting anything that can in any way serve the cause of reconciled
Christian harmony, insofar as it can be done with God and a good conscience.”10 Similarly, a half
century later the confessors in the Formula of Concord Solid Declaration declare that they have no
desire for any superficial unity, “Rather we have a deep yearning and desire for true unity and on our
part have set our hearts and desires on promoting this kind of unity to our utmost ability.”11
In both cases theological discussion and study involving divided Christians is viewed from a principled,
not pragmatic viewpoint. In the case of the confessors at Augsburg, mutual discussion was inherently
important as a testimony to the importance of Christian unity in itself, despite the fact that there was no
resolution of differences. In the second case, where a visible unity was achieved, it was important for the
confessors in 1580 to stress that their efforts were based on a deep desire to uphold the honor of God and
the purity of the Gospel. “Reconciled Christian harmony” and “true unity” call for our highest effort,
even where it does not result in full fellowship at the altar and pulpit.
LSTE provides not only such an important rationale for all ecumenical endeavors, but this document also
gives practical direction in terms of ecumenical priorities (pp. 13-14):
In initiating conversations and dialogue with other church bodies, the Synod will be careful to do
so on terms that are consonant with sound Lutheran theology so as not to give occasion for
offense and jeopardize fellowship relations that already exist. The Synod will avail itself of all
opportunities to engage in conversation with other Christians so long as this can be done without
compromising our confessional position, as would be the case, for instance, were the Synod to be
invited to participate in dialogue on the condition that it recognize the legitimacy of a method of
Biblical interpretation that is incompatible with the Lutheran view of the authority of the Holy
Scriptures. Fruitful dialogue is difficult, if not impossible, unless participants share the same
understanding of the authority of Scripture or unless conversations are held for the purpose of
reaching agreement about Biblical authority as a first step toward discussion of other areas of
doctrine.

3) The ecumenical dialogue section of CTCR reports to conventions (as well as many resolutions)
indicate that the Synod has a long-standing commitment to participation in ecumenical discussions and
dialogs. For example, the LCMS has participated in most Lutheran bi-lateral dialogs (e.g., Roman
Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, Reformed).8

7
Essay delivered to “First Iowa District Convention, St. Paul’s Church, Fort Dodge, Iowa, beginning Aug. 20, 1879,” in C. F.
W. Walther, Essays for the Church, Vol. 2, 1877-1886 (St. Louis: CPH, 1992), p. 23. Brackets in the original, emphasis
added. Walther is referring to a letter from Luther to Bucer, but does not provide full documentation.
8
The exceptions were when the LCMS was not invited to participate or when the goal of the dialog involved
presuppositions/expectations which it could not accept.

3

2013 Convention Workbook

9

CTCR, 1974, p. 12.
KW §13, p. 33.
KW, p. 655.

10
11

4