LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 42

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

42 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

It seemed to lend credence to the apprehension that political
and secular controversy, and purely temporal concerns — from
primarily secular motives, however lofty—are moving to the
center of the Federation’s forum.

Not a few Missourians are disturbed once more, after read-
ing the reports and proceedings issuing from Evian, by doubts
as to whether the LWF does in fact meticulously eschew
“churchly” functions, and does not, at least in some sense,
sometimes conduct itself like a church, as when it is involved
in foreign missions, in theological studies and training, and in
religious services at its assemblies. Perhaps the fear, in those
instances, is groundless: but the question is raised in more
startling form, in the minds of traditional Missourians, by a
resolution adopted by the Assembly (Minutes, Appendix C,
p. 9) urging “member churches and recognized congregations
that they declare altar and pulpit fellowship with all member
churches”: and another unanimously endorsing union negotia-
tions and committing the LWF not only to hinder, but positively
to assist. Lutheran churches in merging with non-Lutheran
groups (ibid., p. 10). It is difficult to escape the conclusion that
this resolution signaled the abandonment by the LWF of much
of its original commitment to confessionalism. And what are the
Prospects for eventual agreement on the great Biblical truths in
a context seemingly marked by a diminishing interest in theology
and the Confessions, a mounting insistence upon social action,
accelerating strides to an unconfined ecumenism, and the sub-
mergence of difference under an attenuated doctrinal con-
sensus?

A study of the documents coming out of Evian seems to invite
the inference that the published formal addresses understated
the purely religious and theological components of a program
of social action upon which strongly confessional Lutheran
churches can unite with others whose Lutheranism seems to
them more casual, and, indeed, almost incidental. These anx-
ieties are reinforced by a scrutiny of the resolutions adopted by
the Assembly and of the arguments and discussions that in-
formed the decisions. It is perhaps not so much what they did
say that troubles some Lutherans, but what they did not say.
One senses ~—at least if he is determined to find it~an almost
studied avoidance of doctrinal and spiritual elements in defer-
ence to a secular, humanistic rationale that many in the Missouri
Synod would identify with secular agencies (with which many
of us are enthusiastically allied in our private capacities) rather
than with the church.

The published Proceedings suggest, in short, an apparent
reluctance to focus upon theological and spiritual concerns
lest they stand in the way of the kind of unity that some (perhaps
most) of the delegates seemed to think it necessary to mobilize
behind the philanthropies, humanitarian programs, and political
action that took up the bulk of the Assembly’s attention. Whether
this inference is correct or not, the purely spiritual and theolog-
ical emphases seem to have been muted throughout the meet-
ings, both in the sections and in the plenary. There were, to be
sure, worship services and the morning Bible studies: but, that
obligation discharged, the delegates seemed almost impatient
to get on with the questions before the Assembly in secular —
and lofty ethical—terms, with relatively infrequent references
to the Bible or the Confessions.

Speakers and official pronouncements and resolutions ap-
parently came close to Saying, without rebuke, that evil has its
roots in “systems,” in ill-contrived social arrangements, rather
than in original sin and the unregenerate hearts of individual
men -—and that, consequently, the remedies are to be sought in
alms and social engineering, in a milieu of all-embracing “‘secu-
lar ecumenism,” in which all Lutherans, renouncing their his-
toric singularities, unite with each other and with all other
Christians to cleanse and heal the human community here on
earth. Eschatological and soteriological preoccupations had
small place at Evian, and one misses in the mass of published
reports and proceedings the allegiance to the Gospel and the
plenary authority of the Bible which has defined and sustained
Missouri’s faith for nearly a century and a half. Again, the CTCR
may Well ask: Is there sufficient reassurance in the rejoinder that
member churches of the LWF are still free to preserve their
singularities, while joining in the (admittedly) splendid labors
that comprise the Federation's program in a distracted world?

That they are heroic labors can hardly be gainsaid. No Chris-
tian can read the reports of the Federation's wide-ranging
efforts, burdened as they are by financial stringencies and ham-

pered by obstacles and rigidities, without thanking God for giv-
ing Lutherans these opportunities and the means to improve
them. No Lutheran can, in good conscience, fail to rejoice in
every step, however short, however faltering, toward a greater
manifestation of the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,”
and toward “the edifying of the body of Christ till we [join]
in the unity of faith.” Nor can the proposition be rebutted that
the resolutions relating to social action and the promotion of
peace, social justice, and the relief of suffering in the world
express humane and God-pleasing moral and political goals that
ought to win the hearts and energize the wills of an incompa-
rably larger constituency in the Christian community than now
in fact subscribe to them. But the question that gives us pause
is whether the church is, to the degree and in the manner that
the proceedings at Evian implied, the proper agency for their
effectuation. Missouri still faces the question of how she can best
give effect to the Mission Affirmations of Detroit: how she can
best go out “into the world”: how she can best promote God’s
kingdom: how she can best engage her sons in the love of God
with all their hearts and minds and strength, and in the love of
their neighbors even as they love themselves: how she can best
preach the Word and administer the sacraments in their purity:
how her loyal sons can, without self-righteous isolation from a
stricken world, heed the injunction to watch, to stand fast in
the faith, to quit themselves like men, and be strong.

‘Adopted by the CTCR. March 27, 1973)

APPENDIX F

Opinion on Membership in Association
of Christian Churches of South Dakota

The South Dakota District of The Lutheran Church — Mis-
souri Synod has received an invitation to join a new ecumenical
association known as the ‘Association of Christian Churches of
South Dakota.” In response toa request from President Crosmer
of the South Dakota District, President Preus has asked the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations to advise the
South Dakota District on this matter. In answering this request,
the commission has reviewed the information provided by Presi-
dent Crosmer, including the proposed constitution and bylaws
of the Association.

We find many commendable features in the structure and
aims of the new Association. The Association carries no implicit
or explicit organizational connection with any national organiza-
tion of an ecumenical nature. Responsibility for all Association
programs and activities not unanimously approved will be
attributed to the involved participants, rather than to the
Association as such. Moreover, the Association promises to
respect the complete autonomy of its members so that neither
its structure nor activities bespeak a “super church.” We note
also that member churches are not financially responsible for
programs or projects in which they do not participate. Further-
more, the Association proposes to carry out many laudable pro-
grams and projects to further ecumenical understanding, in-
cluding the sponsorship of dialogs, forums, and discussion
groups.

However, there are features of the Association that raise
questions for us. The proposed constitution suggests to us that
the Association exists more as a means of manifesting an existing
Oneness than as an instrument for overcoming doctrinal differ-
ences. In addition, some formulations suggest that the Associa-
tion would be engaged in activities usually carried out by
churches, rather than associations of churches. We note, for
example, that the purpose of the Association is not limited to
cooperation in externals and to theological study, but is also
‘To make that unity [in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior} mani-
fest to the world” and “To help fulfill Christ’s mission in this
time and place.” The Association provides a means by which
Christians may increase their “common Christian action in the
world.” It will also endeavor to “strengthen the Spiritual life
and witness of all Christians in the State.”

We also note that the constitution makes provision for the
representation of nonmember units, denominations, or jurisdic-
tions on the Board of Directors and Program Committee of the
organization as “advisory members.” Such members have the
right of voice but without vote.

The invitation under consideration by the South Dakota
District needs to be considered in the larger context of the Pposi-