LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 43

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 43

tion and policies of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. Be-
cause Districts of the Synod are not autonomous units, their
actions not only affect the entire Synod, but are. in effect, the
action of the Synod in a given area.

Although the Synod has recognized the right of its churches
to cooperate with other churches in ‘necessary work” at various
levels, it has also advised that such cooperation is possible only
“to the extent that the Word of God and conscience allow”
(Theology of Fellowship. p. 28, 4). Moreover, it has consistently
declined membership in any organization that carries on
churchly work without ‘‘mutual agreement in doctrine and
in all its articles as well as in the right use of the Holy Sacra-
ments” (Formula of Concord, Epitome, X, 7). In its 1971 conven-
tion, The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod expressed its
“strong commitment to the task of safeguarding the security
of the Gospel in dealing with other churches and in relating to
inter-church and ecumenical groups and activities” (Res. 3-10,
1971 Proceedings. p. 132). The same resolution directs the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations to “‘prepare a more
detailed set of guidelines” for inter-church relations. These
guidelines can be expected to deal with the question of member-
ship in various kinds of inter-church associations.

In view of the questions raised above, and mindful of the deli-
cate nature of the relationships within our own church body, we
are of the opinion that it would not be advisable for the South
Dakota District to accept membership at the present time in the
Association of Christian Churches of South Dakota. We would
find no objection, however, if the South Dakota District would
accept an invitation to be represented through “advisory
members” to the Board of Directors and Program Committee
of the Association. Nor do we understand that it would be in
opposition to the principles of The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod for members of its South Dakota District to be involved
in Association-sponsored study programs or Association proj-
ects that are clearly in the area of “externals.” It appears to
us that such a relationship between the South Dakota District
and the Association would be mutually beneficial and would
serve the best interests of The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod.

(Adopted by the CTCR. January 1972)

APPENDIX G

Opinion on Membership in Oklahoma Conference
of Churches

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations has
before it a request from the Oklahoma District for an opinion
as to the propriety of that District’s affiliation with an association
known as the Oklahoma Conference of Churches. The inquiry
contains, in addition, a statement of intention to enter upon such
affiliation if the commission’s advice to the contrary is not re-
ceived before 15 April 1973.

The commission finds in this proposal a parallel sufficiently
close to an earlier request from the South Dakota District to war-
rant our reiteration of the response sent to that District in a
document, dated January 1972 and entitled “Opinion on Mem-
bership in Association of Christian Churches of South Dakota.”
A copy of that opinion is attached.

The same considerations that prompted the commission to
transmit this counsel to the South Dakota District moves us to
send a similar opinion to the Oklahoma District. We are further
inclined to this course by the divisions and unrest that trouble
certain sectors of the church over the question of our relations
with the Lutheran World Federation, the National Council of
Churches, and the World Council of Churches. The Synod’s
reluctance, at least for the present, to broaden its relationships
at the denominational level as participants in inter-denomina-
tional association like their National Council of Churches and
the World Council of Churches, and the reservations felt by
many of our members over fellowship arrangements (whether
existing, as in the case of the ALC, or proposed, as in the case
of the LCA), seem to us to argue for cautious response to invita-
tions to enter multi-denominational associations at the regional,
District, or local levels.

With respect to the proposal before us. the commission feels
some additional concern over the absence, in the constitution
of the Oklahoma Conference of Churches, of certain safeguards,
notably provisions to permit member churches an option to

abstain from participation in. or to withhold financial support
from, certain selected activities of the Conference, if in the
judgment of Missouri Synod Lutherans such a stance should
seem to be appropriate.

The commission notes. however, that the Conference's
constitution (in the concluding sentences of Article III —3) does
provide that

an eligible communion not a member of the Conference. and its

Boards and agencies may participate in the development and imple-

mentation of any particular cooperative program upon approval of

the Board of Directors. The Committee on Mission Concerns and Task

Forces may include representatives from other bodies and agencies

as consultants as they deem appropriate.

On the basis of this proviso we conclude, as in the earlier
opinion rendered to the South Dakota District, that “we would
find no objection . . . if the {Oklahoma District] would accept
an invitation to be represented through {representatives or
“consultants” as provided in Article III of the Conference's
constitution] in the Conference. Nor do we understand that it
would be in opposition to the principles of The Lutheran Church
—Missouri Synod for members of its [Oklahoma] District to be
involved in (Conference}-sponsored study programs or (Con-
ference] projects that are clearly in the area of ‘externals.’
It appears to us that sucha relationship between the (Oklahoma]
District and the [Conference] would be mutually beneficial and
would serve the best interests of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod.”

‘Adopted by the CTCR. March 27. 1973)

APPENDIX H

Statement on Lutheran/Non-Lutheran Marriage Ceremonies
Statement of the Problem

1. Increasingly in mixed marriages, the pastors of both
parties to the marriage are being invited to participate in the
wedding service.

2. The inquiry of the Board of Theology of the Kansas
District is directed to the pertinence to this practice of Article
V1 of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
which includes among the “conditions for acquiring and holding
membership in the Synod” the “renuciation of unionism and
syncretism of every description,’ such as “taking part in ser-
vices and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of
congregations of mixed confession.”

Clarification of the Term “Heterodox™
Definitions

The following are some dictionary definitions of the term
“heterodox”:

1. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: “not in accordance with

established or accepted doctrines or opinions, especially the-
ology.”
2. Oxford English Dictionary: “Of doctrines. opinions, ete.:
not in accord with established doctrine or opinion, or those
generally recognized as right or ‘orthodox’: of persons: holding
opinion not in accord with some acknowledged standard.”

3. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethies. edited by James Has-
tings, 9:570f.: “To be ‘orthodox’ is to hold and profess opinions
which are regarded as in some sense ‘right’... Heterodoxia. an
awkwardly formed yet useful derivative, is the character of
thinking which is ‘other’ than right . . . . Strictly speaking,
orthodoxy in religion is concerned only with doctrine or belief.
with the intellectual element in spiritual life. It ought to have
for its correlatives such words as ‘orthopathy’ and ‘orthopraxy’.
the inward experience and the outward exercise of piety.”

Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics. (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1953, II, 422), says:

A congregation or church body which abides by God's order. in which
therefore God’s Word is taught in its purity and the Sacraments ad-
ministered according to the divine institution, is properly called an
orthodox church ‘ecclesia orthodoxa, pura). But a congregation or
church body which, in spite of the divine order, tolerates false doc-
trine in its midst is properly called a heterodox church (ecclesia
heterodora, impura?.

The thought which all of these definitions, secular and ec-
clesiastical, have in common is that the heterodox are those
who believe and teach contrary to an acknowledged standard.