LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 49

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 49

The primary purposes of ATA are joint action ‘in the areas
of theological education and the strengthening of evangelical
theologians and institutions concerned with theological training
in Asia and the South Pacific’: consultative service and assis-
tance “in the work of bodies engaged in Theological Education
by Extension”: coordination of and assistance in the production
and dissemination of information regarding theological books
with an Asian context: the sponsorship of seminars and study
Programs dealing with contemporary theological issues and
theological education: and “the development of centers of ad-
vanced study and research on issues of Christian theology
and mission in the context of contemporary Asian thought and
culture.”

As Dr. Berndt describes it, the ATA is not an association
of churches. Its stated purposes do not include ecumenical
endeavors as defined in the CTCR “Lutheran Stance Toward
Ecumenism” document. Based on information available from
the constitution and bylaws of the association and from the
correspondence, its activities are limited to cooperation in
externals, The Hong Kong seminary joined the Asia Theological
Association for two reasons:

1. To avail itself of the benefits outlined in the paragraph
above, particularly information about textbooks and TEE ma-
terials, participation in seminars, and the use of the research
centers.

2. To provide Lutheran influence when materials are con-
sidered for translation or publication.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong seminary’s affiliation with
ATA has been made conditional, partly because one of the con-
ditions for membership is affirmation of a statement of faith.
This statement professes belief in the basic doctrines set forth
in the section on the Apostles’ Creed in Luther’s Small Cate-
chism; the divine inspiration, authority, and infallibility of the
Holy Scriptures: the dignity of man created in the image of God:
the responsibility of Christians to witness to the Gospel: the
unity of all believers who compose the church: and the total
mission of the church to the whole man in society.

In response to this request for an opinion regarding member-
ship by the Hong Kong seminary in the Asia Theological Associ-
ation, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations re-
solves that the following be communicated to Dr. Berndt through
the Board for Missions:

1, We thank Dr. Berndt for his consideration in referring
the matter of the Hong Kong seminary’s membership in ATA to
us for an opinion, and we apologize for the delay in responding.

2. We find nothing in the constitution and bylaws of ATA or
in correspondence before us to indicate that affiliation would
violate synodical resolutions, policies, or principles of fellowship
and ecumenism.

3. We share his concern that Article III 1 of the ATA consti-
tution, which contains the statement of faith, may be interpreted
in various ways. We encourage him to remain ready to define
any words in controversy according to the Lutheran under-
standing of these doctrines.

4. Since Article VIII does not exclude the statement of faith
from amendment, we would expect the seminary to apply the
same understanding to proposed changes and to respond
accordingly.

9. Finally, we trust that the seminary would consider with-
drawal from ATA if joint activities indicate doctrinal agreement
where there is none, Particularly if participation in projects
involves joint worship or the spiritual ministry of the church.

Adopted by the CTCR. January 1975

App. 3-01D
REPORT ON LUTHERAN-REFORMED DIALOG

The initial series of Lutheran-Reformed dialogs took place
between 1962 and 1966 and resulted in the publication of Mar-
burg Revisited, a symposium of essays on doctrinal issues that
have divided Lutheran and Reformed churches in the past.

Although important doctrinal differences remained unre-
solved, the first series of dialogs concluded with the rather
optimistic statement: “As a result of our studies and discussions
we see no insuperable obstacles to pulpit and altar fellowship
and, therefore, we recommend to our parent bodies that they
encourage their constituent churches te enter into discussions

looking forward to intereommunion and the fuller recognition
of one another’s ministries.” (Marburg Revisited, Augsburg,
1966, p. 191)

In spite of this rather optimistic consensus statement virtually
no action by the participating church bodies followed. Only the
American Lutheran Church and The Lutheran Church — Mis-
souri Synod took official notice of these proceedings. Since the
dialogs had apparently not dealt with some crucial points of
difference, there was considerable concern within the LCMS
regarding the statement: “We see no insuperable obstacles to
pulpit and altar fellowship.” However, both at the New York
convention (1967) and again at Milwaukee (1971) the Synod
expressed readiness to continue the dialogs so long as there
was an opportunity for frank and open discussion of the existing
doctrinal differences.

In this spirit The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod ac-
cepted the invitation to enter the second round of Lutheran-
Reformed conversations. Other participating church bodies
in this series were the Lutheran Church in America, the Amer-
ican Lutheran Church, Reformed Church of America, Christian
Reformed Church, United Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian
Church in the U.S., and the United Church of Christ. The
Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presby-
terian Church, both of whom had participated in the original
discussions, withdrew from the second series. Responsible
Lutheran and Reformed leaders met in July 1971 under the
sponsorship of the Division of Theological Studies of the Lu-
theran Council in the U.S.A. and the North American Area
of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and adopted the
following objective for the dialog participants:

In resuming the Lutheran-Reformed conversations, it shall be the
objective to assess the consensus and remaining differences in the
theology and life of the participating churches as they bear upon
the teaching of the Gospel in the current situation.

The undersigned were appointed by President J. A. O. Preus
to represent The Lutheran Church-— Missouri Synod at the six
meetings held between 1972 and 1974.

The discussions initially sought to move toward altar and
pulpit fellowship by building on the consensus expressed in
Marburg Revisited. But this procedure proved to be unsatis-
factory since it was based on the assumption that sufficient
consensus had already been reached, when in fact serious dif-
ferences remained. For example, it became evident early in the
discussions that differences on the meaning of the Gospel itself
existed between some Lutheran and Reformed participants.

The Leuenberg Concord, prepared between 197] and 1974
as the basis for fellowship between the European Lutheran
and Reformed Churches, was then offered as a basis on which
to assess the remaining doctrinal differences. The LCMS repre-
sentatives to the dialogs expressed considerable disagreement
with The Leuenberg Concord and called attention to the criti-
cisms expressed against it by confessional Lutherans in Europe.
Moreover, it was generally recognized that the theological and
cultural situation in America is different from that in Europe.
For a variety of reasons it was concluded that The Leuenberg
Concord was not an adequate formula for assessing consensus
and discussing the remaining differences between the Lutheran
and Reformed churches in America.

At this point in the dialog attention was focused on one of
the traditionally most disputed doctrines, the Lord’s Supper
and the meaning of the Real Presence. Serious differences
between the church bodies became apparent. Although the
final report of the participants in the Lutheran-Reformed con-
versations recognizes that differences in doctrine still remain
and that these may even involve error, nevertheless, with the
exception of the LCMS, all participants agreed that such doc-
trinal differences “ought not to be regarded as obstacles to
pulpit and altar fellowship.” It was also concluded that future
dialogs should be carried forward “on a church body to church
body basis” and “that this present series of Lutheran-Reformed
conversations be considered terminated.”

Because they could not agree with certain claims in the
draft of the final report, Missouri’s representatives submitted
a statement of dissent to the final meeting of the dialog. In this
Statement they expressed appreciation for the opportunity to
engage in free and open discussion on doctrinal questions be-
tween the respective church bodies, but they pointed out they
could not set their signatures to any statement that implied a
greater degree of doctrinal consensus than actually exists. The