LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 11

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

MISSIONS 11

the Lutheran Confessions, and that there is disagreement with
the CTCR’s evaluation and regret that the convention in Milwau-
kee took the action it did in Resolution 2-50.

Regarding the Mission Affirmations, it appears that at times
they have been regarded as sanctioning many types of mission
and ecumenical policies which are beyond the Scriptures, the
Confessions, and other synodical resolutions which clarify such
matters. We believe that there are various important Biblical
emphases in the Affirmations which rightly and eloquently show
a deep compassion for men in their spiritual and physical
condition. The Affirmations offer a number of dimensions which
need continual emphasis, yet the Milwaukee convention asked
the CTCR to study them as to their adequacy. We believe that
the Affirmations lack clarity and are ambiguous at certain points
and have allowed for some confusion in mission doctrine and
practice. They seem to lack in proper emphasis on the Word of
God as the Source and Norm of the mission, on the necessity of
faith through which salvation is obtained (subjective justifica-
tion), on the recognition of the visible and invisible church (and
the reality of differences between denominations), on the
political involvement by the churches as an institution (no clear
distinction between the two kingdoms), the use of Law and
Gospel in missions, the hostility of the sinful world against the
faithful church, the proper balance between Gospel proclama-
tion and social involvement, the eschatological aspect of missions
(Matt. 24:14), and on the ultimate goal of eternal life. The Mission
Affirmations are somewhat outdated because they do not ad-
dress themselves to some of the major issues of mission concerns
in the 1970s: Problems of humanism, universalism, synergism,
ecumenism, the so-called ‘anonymous Christian,” and revolu-
tion liberation theology.

We believe there needs to be a sensitivity towards the doc-
trine of the two kingdoms, recognizing that our mission is unique
and different from any secular group or government. It is
directed toward putting man’s existence under Christ's Savior-
ship and Lordship through faith by the Holy Spirit. The mandate
of the New Testament church is to minister both to its own
members and to the lost with the Means of Grace. We seek to
avoid worldly secularization of the church. To present missions
merely as a form of Christian compassion for the underpriv-
ileged is a distortion. Nor is the church an agent of social revolu-
tion. Yet the church stands against sin, injustice, bigotry, preju-
dice, and it seeks to correct the human nature which produces
human problems. The church as an institution should not take
a political stand but do its work through its individual members
who witness and influence, working individually and corporately
through all levels of government.

Theological problems which concern us and which were pre-
sented as difficulties within the board are found in such esSays
as ‘What on Earth Does the Gospel Change?" (Lutheran World,
Vol. XVI, No. 4, 1969), ‘Where Is the Church Going in World
Missions?” (Papers & Proceedings, Workshop on Church-Min-
istry, Concordia Seminary Print Shop, 1970), and “Theological
Education” (presentation to the Board of World Missions, LCA,
Nov. 11, 1968). We find that certain points lack a commitment to-
ward unadulterated Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine and a
failure to understand the nature of false teaching. We find an
indifference to doctrine which runs counter to the many Biblical
injunctions that God’s people should preach and teach the full
truth of the divine Word and refuse to enter into unionistic
fellowship with those who err in doctrine and practice. A com-
plete reading of these three essays provides ample evidence for
concern about doctrine and ecumenical stability.

2. Ecumenical Practices and Problems of Unionism

We encourage an approach of coordination, consultation and
general cooperation with Lutherans and Christians in matters
where God’s Word is not denied, and we seek fellowship on the
basis of God’s Word, while we reject all forms of unionism. On
the other hand, we recognize a euphoria in ecumenism which
seems incapable of discerning the spirits or of confessing the
infallible Scriptural truths. Cooperation in mission work on
the basis of an ill-defined or un-defined minimum of agreement
on the substance of missionary proclamation is a perilous pro-
cedure, for the confessional question is important also in mis-
sionary work. While we recognize the fellowship that exists
among all those who have become Children of God through faith
in Jesus Christ, we express that fellowship in the outward struc-
ture of the church under the standards of the sacred Scriptures

as has been expressed in our synodical Handbook and resolu-
tions. We seek to avoid both separatism and unionism. Our
board’s “Policy Statement” presents clearly the practice ex-
pected in both sending and receiving churches as in the practice
of the apostolic church in the New Testament.

Campus ministry work has presented some confusion in the
distinction between coordinative and unified work with the
result that ‘coordinative and consultative” work has sometimes
actually been ‘“‘joint and unified” work. The LCMS principles
are involved, since the Missouri Synod is not in fellowship with
the LCA, one of the parties in campus work. We affirm the
“Policy Statement on Campus Ministry” of the 1967 New York
convention (Workbook. pp.52—53) and adopted in Resolution
3-20 (Proceedings. pp.101—102). This resolution called for
coordination and consultation between the various Lutheran
bodies and that the Board for Missions advise Districts and their
campus pastors of synodical principles for the campus ministry,
but it did not give approval to a unified or a joint campus min-
istry by the LCMS with the LCA. Subsequent conventions left
these principles unchanged with the result that local, District,
regional, and national work with other Lutherans is to be held
to coordination and consultation. Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws,
and past synodical resolutions have never authorized joint or
unified campus work as is reflected in tri-Lutheran agencies
which have begun in some Districts. The unified campus min-
istry or tri-Lutheran agency with representation from all three
Lutheran Synods exercises supervision over the campus min-
istry in a given place by its selection of the campus pastor to be
called by one of the church bodies, and it administers the cam-
pus ministry that is recognized by all three Lutheran bodies.
The Governing Board, which involves the LCA, directs the cam-
pus ministry on behalf of and in the name of the LCMS, as well
as the ALC and LCA. We understand “coordination” as being
organized separately but planning together for timing to avoid
schedule conflicts, etc. We understand “consultation” to mean
that we seek information and advice from each other, compare
views and confer together. We understand “unified” or ‘Joint
ministry”’ to mean the use of the same form or structure or to
join together in combined action — which is what the tri-Lutheran
campus agency is. We disagree with the staff, the minority of the
Board, and some Districts who accept the tri-Lutheran campus
ministry agency as proper, and we also express our concern over
the participation of LCMS campus pastors in conferences held
the past several years with ecumenical Communion services
which are not in accord with the doctrinal position and practice
of the LCMS.

Membership in the Lutheran World Federation was again
declined at the Synod’s 1971 Milwaukee convention. The India
Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Korea Lutheran Church
now are members of the Lutheran World Federation. Recently,
the Lutheran Church in the Philippines has resolved to request
membership in this organization. Both the Synod’s Commission
on Theology and Church Relations and its Board for Missions
stated in resolutions that ‘‘since concern has been expressed
about the direction taken by the LWF at the 1970 Evian As-
sembly, and since the LWF is presently receiving serious review
by the CTCR at the request of the Synod, it is our considered
opinion that we should respectfully and fraternally urge our
sister church in the Philippines not to take action at this time
to become a member of the LWF.” We recognize that problems
still exist in the LWF that have serious implications in the areas
of the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures, interpretation
of the Lutheran Confessions which permit conflicting theology to
stand side by side, intimate association with the World Council
of Churches, forms of fellowship which raise serious Scriptural
questions, support of theological chairs, liberal influence in
missions, publication of theological literature, and practices of
inter-Communion. Considerable material is available to show the
direction and influence of the LWF on those with whom it works,
including LCMS mission fields and workers. Both LWF informa-
tion bulletins and LCUSA News Bureau Releases have provided
information on negative influences especially contrary to our
ecumenical standards, which raise the question as to what type
of influence LCMS sister churches in the LWF bring to the orga-
nization, and what type of influence the LWF is having on them.
Doctrinal consensus is often minimal, and union is advocated as
a means toward gaining unity of faith, instead of an evidence of
such unity.

Documents have been discussed in the Board (‘Theological