NOTES:
[1]
Ambiguous denominationalism is a phrase which is
sometimes used to refer to the fact that doctrinal divergence
today is often as great within a denomination as between
denominations.
[2]
Resolution 3-02A, Convention Proceedings, 1977, p.126.
In this resolution the Synod stated that years of discussions
between representatives of the ALC and LCMS had revealed
clear doctrinal differences between them on the doctrine of
Scripture, the ordination of women, the nature and basis of
fellowship, and membership in ecumenical organizations. At
the same time, however, the Synod noted that "there is some
evidence of agreement in doctrine and practice between
members of the ALC and LCMS on the local level," that "not
all members of the ALC share the objectionable positions and
practices of the ALC," that "many LCMS members are unaware of
the serious differences that exist at the church body level,"
and that "there is considerable evidence of doctrinal
disagreement and confusion in understanding the nature and
implications of the concept of fellowship." Taking all of
these factors into account, the Synod proceeded to declare
itself to be in a state of "fellowship in protest with the
ALC" on account of doctrinal disagreements and to ask the
CTCR "to prepare a comprehensive study and report on the
nature and implications of the concept of fellowship." This
assignment to the CTCR was renewed in 1979. Cf. Resolution
3-03, Convention Proceedings, 1979, pp. 117 f.
[3]
Some have suggested that the starting point for a
comprehensive treatment of the concept of fellowship should
be Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. Such an approach
would certainly be legitimate, since this article has
important implications for this subject. As the CTCR has
stated ("A Review of the Question 'What Is a Doctrine,'"A
Report of the CTCR, 1967, p. 7): "A pure understanding of the
Gospel, and therefore correct preaching of the Gospel, calls
for a correct understanding of the articles of faith treated
in the Augsburg Confession, defended in its Apology, and
explained in the remaining Lutheran Confessions,
particularly the Formula of Concord. All articles of faith
are integrally related to the Gospel and articulate the
Gospel from different perspectives. Consequently the
preaching of the Gospel according to a pure understanding of
it is not possible when any article of faith is either
falsified or denied." At the same time, the CTCR has stated
that AC VII "is not in the first instance a programmatic
statement for the establishment of denominational
fellowship." Therefore the Commission has approached this
assignment from the doctrine of the means by which the church
is created, nurtured, and preserved (the marks of the
church), rather than from the doctrine of the church itself.
[4]
J. V. Campbell says that koinonia means "having
something in common with someone" or "participating in
something" (J. V. Campbell,
"Koinonia and Its Cognates in the New Testament," Journal
of Biblical Literature (1932), pp. 356 f.). The
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon (second edition) lists four
meanings: 1) association, communion, fellowship, close
relationship; 2) generosity, fellow- feeling, altruism; 3)
sign of fellowship, proof of brotherly unity, gift,
contribution; and 4) participation, sharing in something
(W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd
ed. rev. and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and Frederick Danker
[Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979], pp.
438-39). Friedrich Hauck in the Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament outlines his discussion of the New
Testament's use of koinonia and its cognates under the
headings: 1) "to share with someone in something"; 2) "to
give someone a share in something"; and 3) "fellowship"
(Friedrich Hauck, "Koinon-in the New Testament," Vol. 3
[Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965], pp. 804- 809). Cf.
also Heinrich Seesemann, Der Begriff Koinonia im Neuen
Testament (Giessen: Verlag von Alfred Toepelmann, 1933).
[5]
We therefore confess in the Nicene Creed: "And I believe
one holy, Christian, and apostolic church." That there is,
properly speaking, only one church is also confessed in the
third article of the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in ... the
holy Christian church" (The Book of Concord, pp. 18-19).
[6]
It is for this reason that the Lutheran Confessions
distinguish between the church properly speaking (proprie
dicta) and broadly speaking (large dicta) (Ap, VII and
VIII, 10, 12-13, 16, 20, 22).
[7]
Fellowship understood as an external relationship to be
manifested and maintained also possesses a spiritual
dimension, to be sure, in that it is constituted by agreement
in the confession of the Scriptural Gospel and the
administration of the sacraments.
[8]
Cf. Martin Franzmann, "Exegesis on Romans 16:17 ff.,"
Concordia Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (January 1981), pp. 13-20.
[9]
Cf. "A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism," A Report of the
CTCR, 1974, pp. 9 f., for a more extensive treatment of what
the Lutheran Confessions teach about church fellowship.
[10]
Theologians use the Latin phrase fides qua creditur
("the faith by which one believes") and fides quae creditur
("the faith which is believed") to distinguish between faith
understood as the believer's trust in God's redemptive
activity in Christ (fides qua) and "faith" understood as
the body of Christian doctrine Aides quae).
[11]
FC Ep, V, 7.
[12]
See note 10 above.
[13]
There is no Scriptural evidence to indicate that
external unity in the church necessarily implies
organizational unity.
[14]
Cf. Peter Brunner, "The Realization of Church
Fellowship," The Unity of the Church: A Symposium (Rock
Island,Ill.: Augustana Press, 1957), p. 13. Brunner writes:
"The unity of the church is unquestionably constantly given.
The unity of the spiritual body of Jesus is indestructible.
... When we take this seriously, we cannot formulate our task
in the ecumenical consultations to be the establishing of the
unity of the Church of Jesus Christ. Contrariwise, we must
derive our ecumenical obligation from the unity of the church
that is continually given. We should not formulate our task
in such a way as to say that we have to make the unity of the
church of God visible on earth. For we cannot visibly draw
the lines of division which truly separate the living members
of the body of Jesus from those who will not inherit the
kingdom of God. This line of separation is seen now only by
the eye of God. Therefore the unity of the Church of God
will only first be manifest for our eyes in the apocalyptic
revelation of the kingdom of God."
[15]
Cf. ibid., p. 20: "For the sake of men's salvation, the
church stands under the command to preserve clearly the
apostolic Word, and thereby, the mark of apostolicity at its
center. In obedience to this principal ecclesiological
command, the church must repudiate all false doctrine. In
obedience to this command, it must refuse to grant church
fellowship where agreement cannot be reached on the content
of the Word which is to be proclaimed as the apostolic
message and faithfully administered in its sacraments."
[16]
Cf. "A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism," pp. 9 - 10.
[17]
Cf. Martin Franzmann, "Exegesis on Romans 16:17 ff.," p.
18. Franzmann describes the complexity of the situation which
existed in the church in Galatia: "The most persistent
troublers of Pauline congregations and Pauline missions ...
were undoubtedly Judaizers, known to us best and most clearly
from the Epistles to the Galatians and the Book of Acts. Acts
(15:5) tells that they were Pharisees who had come to the
faith. St. Paul's language concerning them in Galatians is
stern and uncompromising, designed to lay bare the
fundamental contradiction between their propaganda and the
Gospel of the free grace of God in Christ Jesus. But the very
force and fury of his language is evidence that what the
Judaizers brought was deceptively like the real article. What
they preached was, in their understanding of it, 'another
gospel,' and it is understandable that whereas St. Paul
stresses the 'another,' they stressed the 'gospel.' It is not
beyond imagination to think that they were of the conviction
that they were propagating a more conservative type of
Christianity, the genuine Jerusalem variety, made of sterner
stuff than the manpleasing dilution of it that St. Paul had
originally proclaimed among the Galatians."
[18]
Titus was a Greek. Hence to compel him to be circumcised
would be to compromise the Gospel. But Timothy, although he
had a Greek father, as the son of a Jewish mother could be
considered to be a Jew. Paul could therefore circumcise him
without compromising the Gospel.
[19]
See "Theology of Fellowship," A Report of the CTCR,
1967, pp. 12 f., for a more complete review of the practice
of church fellowship in church history.
[20]
Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the
First Four Centuries, trans. N. E. Nagel (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House,
1966), p. 109. Elert writes (p. 113): "Heterodoxy breaks
church fellowship and therefore self-evidently and primarily
also altar fellowship."
[21]
Ibid., p. 128.
[22]
Cf. Martin Luther, Luther's Works, ed. J. Pelikan,
Vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians 1535 (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1963), p. 25. Commenting on Gal. 1:2, Luther
writes: "Therefore the church is holy even where the fanatics
are dominant, so long as they do not deny the Word and the
sacraments; if they deny these, they are no
longer the church. Wherever the substance of the Word and the
sacraments abides, therefore, there the holy church is
present, even though Antichrist may reign there."
[23]
Examined here are only those models for external unity
in the church which have been proposed by worldwide
ecumenical organizations such as the World Council of
Churches and the Lutheran World Federation, or which have
been frequently discussed in the Synod. Models for external
unity in the church not reviewed here range from "ecclesial
communion," proposed by the Second Vatican Council, based on
a sacramental expression of the mystery of the Trinity (cf.
John Hotchkin's "Probing the Possibilities," Interface,
1980, pp. 3 f.), to the demand of separatistic groups for
total agreement not only in doctrine but also in ceremonies,
polity, and all matters of adiaphora.
[24]
Cf., e.g., "The Church, the Churches, and the World
Council of Churches," Central Committee Minutes, Toronto,
1950, pp. 84-90.
[25]
The New Delhi Report (London: SCM, 1962), p. 116.
[26]
The Uppsala 68 Report (Geneva: WCC, 1968), p. 17.
[27]
The WCC has continued to discuss Conciliarity since
1973, e.g., at Accra, Ghana (July-August 1974), and Nairobi
(1975).
[28]
"The Unity of the Church-Next Steps," The Ecumenical
Review, 26 (April 1974), p. 293.
[29]
Ibid., pp. 293-95. Cf. "Concepts of Unity and Models of
Union: A Preliminary Study Document," 1972, p. 11. "Organic
union seems, therefore, the only model worth considering. The
statements of the New Delhi and Uppsala assemblies point in
the same direction. The 'fully committed fellowship' for
which New Delhi pleaded can only come about by the organic
union of Christians and congregations in each place.' ...
Such a degree of fellowship cannot be secured by the other
models: movement, federation, mutual recognition." J.E.
Lesslie Newbigin, one of the fathers of conciliarism, writes:
"We have not included among the legitimate groups for
provisional separation the distinct 'types' of Christian
discipleship which have developed in history on the basis of
special experiences of individual leaders or national
churches, 'types' defined by such names as Anglican,
Lutheran, Roman, etc. Such forms of separation seem to be
roundly condemned by the language of St. Paul in dealing with
the Corinthian factions. ... The provisional arrangements of
which we have been speaking are those which arise from
missionary obligation" ("What Is 'a Local Church Truly
United'?" quoted in John F. Hotchkin's "Probing the
Possibilities," Interface [Spring 1980], 8).
[30]
"Concepts of Unity and Models of Union," p. 13.
[31]
Ibid., p. 14.
[32]
"The Unity of the Church-Next Steps," p. 298.
[33]
"Concepts of Unity and Models of Union," p. 3.
[34]
Ibid., p. 4.
[35]
Ibid., p. 7. Ernst Kasemann, among others, argues, on
the basis of a historical-critical investigation of the New
Testament, that we now know that many of the doctrinal
differences found in contemporary denominationalism simply
mirror the diversity to be found in the New Testament itself.
Cf. "The New Testament Canon and the Unity of the Church,"
Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM Press, 1971).
Kaesemann writes (pp. 103-104): "The New Testament canon does
not, as such, constitute the foundation of the unity of the
church. On the contrary, as such (that is, in its
accessibility to the historian) it provides the basis for the
multiplicity of the confessions. The variability of the
kerygma in the New Testament is an expression of the fact
that in primitive Christianity a wealth of different
confessions were already in existence. ... If the canon as
such is binding in its totality, the various confessions may,
with differing degree of historical justification, claim as
their own larger or smaller tracts of it, better or less
known New Testament writers."
[36]
WCC Exchange, No. 3/2, July 1977. Representatives from
14 confessional families including the Lutheran World
Federation participate in the meetings of the "Conferences of
Secretaries of WCFs," which are informal. (The Conference has
no constitution.)
[37]
Ibid., p. 6.
[38]
Ibid., p. 7.
[39]
Ibid.
[40]
Ibid., p. 9.
[41]
Ibid., p. 7.
[42]
Andreas Aarflot, "The Lutheran Church and the Unity of
the Church," In Christ-A New Community: The Proceedings of
the Sixth Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation
(Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 1977), pp. 35-51.
[43]
Ibid., p. 43.
[44]
Ibid., p. 45.
[45]
Ibid., p. 45-46
[46]
Ibid., p. 46 .
[47]
Cf. Ibid., p. 41. Bishop Aarflot writes: "We are under
obligation to strive together to bring forth the true
unity of the church (Eph. 4, 1 ff.). This basic obligation
constrains us, both within our own churches and in wider
organizational structures of an ecumenical character. ... The
guiding principle of our efforts is the basic universal
unity which we believe the churches share as long as they
are committed to the one apostolic faith. This is a unity
given in Christ. ... We want to stress the fact, however,
that the unity we seek should be an outward recognizable unity which becomes historically manifest in the life of the
churches. The confession of the hidden unity of the church is
not a sufficient expression of the true unity that we seek."
[48]
Ibid., p. 45.
[49]
Cf. "The Ecumenical Role of the World Confessional
Families in the One Ecumenical Movement," p. 9: "Unity and
fellowship among the churches do not require uniformity of
faith and order, but can and must encompass a plurality of
diversity of convictions and traditions." (Emphasis added.)
[50]
"Response by The Rev. John Gatu," In Christ-A New
Community: The Proceedings of the Sixth Assembly of the
Lutheran World Federation (Geneva: The Lutheran World
Federation, 1977), p. 53.
[51]
Minutes of the American Lutheran Church, 1946, p. 23.
Quoted by Edward C. Fendt in The Struggle for Lutheran Unity
and Consolidation in the USA from the Late 1930's to the
Early 1970's, pp. 41-42. This resolution states: "WHEREAS
the matter of 'Selective Fellowship' was discussed at the
1944 convention of the Church and was referred to the
districts for study and consideration, and WHEREAS the
Committee on Fellowship of the American Lutheran Church
reports that all districts endorsed 'Selective Fellowship' in
principle, therefore be it Resolved that pastors and
parishes of the American Lutheran Church shall be free to
have pulpit, altar, and prayer fellowship with such pastors
and parishes of other Lutheran Synods as agree, in doctrine
and practice, with the declarations made in Sections 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Article II-Confession of Faith-of the Constitution
of the American Lutheran Church." This resolution was based
on a statement prepared by Dr. M. Reu.
[52]
Cf. 1967 Convention Workbook, p. 60; 1969 Convention
Workbook, pp. 107-108; 1971 Convention Workbook, p. 190;
1973 Convention Workbook, pp. 90-91; 1975 Convention
Workbook, p. 129; 1977 Convention Workbook, p. 122; and
1979 Convention Workbook, pp. 118-119.
[53]
The Lutheran Cyclopedia defines selective fellowship
as the principle whereby the exercise of Christian fellowship
(e.g., pulpit, altar, prayer) is determined by an individual
or by a local church" (1975 ed., s.v. "Selective
Fellowship"). But The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church
gives this definition: "When one church body establishes
pulpit and altar fellowship with another, it may be further
stipulated that such fellowship may be selective, i.e., that
only that pastor or congregation be admitted to this
fellowship in whose case it is felt genuine Christian
fellowship is not violated, say, for doctrinal reasons"
(1965 ed, s.v. "Selective Fellowship").
[54]
Cf. the following response of an LCMS Bible class to the
CTCR's "Bible Study on Fellowship": "The question before a
synodical convention should not be whether we have church
fellowship [with another denomination]. ... Rather, we
believe the Synod can and should go on record as condemning
particular false teachings or unscriptural practices taught
or tolerated in these bodies. ... The doctrinal integrity of
the Synod would thus be safeguarded. It would remain in the
sphere of the individual congregation whether to commune
guests from synods which have thus been marked as teaching or
tolerating false teachings. It would remain in the sphere of
the local congregation whether to have a joint service or
activity with a particular congregation from such a synod. We
think this would be realistic, since the label of false
teaching does not apply in each individual case."
[55]
Cf. the following response of an LCMS Bible class to the
CTCR's "Bible Class on Fellowship": "It is the experience and
belief of the people in this Bible class that there are many
individuals who have faith in Christ, who trust God's grace,
and who sincerely-though imperfectly desire to serve the
Lord, and that these people are found in varying degrees in
most all Christian denominations. We have a God- given
fellowship with all these people, a fellowship which is not
destroyed by the fact that we each hold membership in
different imperfect denominations. We are duty-bound to
express our fellowship with these people and need to find
ways of doing so. It makes no sense for us to refuse to join
them in prayer, worship, etc., because some people in their
denominations are out of fellowship with us or because some
things are taught in their denominations which we consider
wrong. Such refusal is not Biblical. ... Not only are there
many individuals with Christian faith in other
denominations, but many of the congregations and pastors of
these denominations confess and proclaim the saving faith in
Jesus Christ and sincerely work to serve Him. This faith
unites us with these pastors and congregations, as well as
with the individual believers. Whatever our denominational
conventions may assert, God says that we have fellowship with
those pastors and congregations (non Lutheran as well as
Lutheran), and we need to find ways of expressing this
God-given fellowship with them.... Questions of how and with
whom to acknowledge and express fellowship are best decided
on the level where that acknowledgment and expression is to
take place. ... We on the local level should not let
conventions and/or synodical administrations interfere with
our exercise of this right and responsibility."
[56]
Cf. the
following response of a pastor's conference to the CTCR's
"Bible Study on Fellowship": "It must border on false
doctrine to believe that sinful human beings can know the
Gospel of Christ purely and can communicate that Gospel of
Christ purely. ... Fellowship is not 'establishing
relationships.' Fellowship exists through 'the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace.' We are united in 'one body and
one Spirit ... one hope ... one Lord, one faith, one
Baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and
through all and in all' (Eph. 4:3- 6). Christians have that
fellowship regardless of whether church bodies establish
relationships or not. Individual Christians have both the
right and perhaps the obligation to practice (give
manifestation to a belief) on an individual basis the
fellowship they have in Christ. Some relationships may be
best established by churches, such as altar and pulpit
fellowship. However, to imply that all activities that
demonstrate our unity in Christ should be determined by
church bodies is unsupportable. ... Just as a denomination's
declaration of altar and pulpit fellowship with another
denomination does not determine that all congregations in
those two denominations must have altar and pulpit
fellowship, so the lack of declaration of altar and pulpit
fellowship should not determine that fellowship activities
cannot be appropriate in certain instances."
[57]
The view that church members at the local level are in a
better position than national conventions to determine with
whom they should give expression to their unity in the body
of Christ falsely assumes that church fellowship is based on
faith in the heart instead of on agreement in confession.
[58]
Cf. Edward C. Fendt's comments on the ALC's 1946
adoption of selective fellowship. Dr. Fendt writes: "No
amount of rationalization or interpretation could make the
proposal of Selective Fellowship acceptable or workable. It
was regarded as effrontery and audacity on the part of the
ALC and rightly so. It encouraged individualism and
'rebellion' (at least breaking rank) in the other churches.
But the most objectionable feature was the suggestion
(requirement?) to agree with Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Article II in the Constitution of the ALC (just a few steps
short of applying for membership in the ALC). ... Many years
later. ... Dr. Franklin Clark Fry with his characteristic
articulation and candor described the ALC's resolution of
Selective Fellowship accurately. He regarded it as inept and
offensive 'church politics.' He said with a bit of laughter:
'Every time I accept an invitation to speak under any kind of
auspices I know that I do not qualify. I am neither in
agreement with the Pittsburgh Agreement nor with Article II
of the ALC Constitution. One of these days I shall never
again accept an invitation from ALC sources until this
business of Selective Fellowship is rescinded." The Struggle
for Lutheran Unity and Consolidation in the USA from the Late
1930's to the Early 1970's (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1980), pp. 42-43.
[59]
Hermann Sasse, "Selective Fellowship," The Australasian
Theological Review (September 1957), p. 55. As Sasse points
out, selective fellowship with its excessive
congregationalism betrays a deficient understanding of the
doctrine of the church. Sasse writes: "From these biblical
facts it must be understood that the Church in all ages up to
the 17th century always has seen fellowship between
Christians as fellowship between the churches to which the
individuals belong. There was never such a thing as private
practice of intercommunion, never something like 'selective
fellowship,' which is an invention of modern Americans. Elert
in his last book, mentioned above, gives a convincing proof
of this for the Ancient Church." Cf. the results of a study
project on local ecumenism carried out recently by the
Strasbourg Institute of Ecumenical Research, Lutheran World
Information, Dec. 18, 1980, pp. 12-14. This study concluded:
"The transcending of old divisions means in many places the
creation of new divisions. Congregationalism is often
promoted at the cost of loyalty to individual confessional
families and the whole church. Two congregations which belong
to the same ecclesial family but find themselves in different
geographical locations are in danger of estranging each other
by their individual 'ecumenical efforts'-mostly made without
reciprocal information. A local 'unity' with others can lead
to separation from those congregations who belong to the same
ecclesial family but live in other places."
[60]
Cf. FC SD, VII, 33: "Dr. Luther, who understood the true
intention of the Augsburg Confession better than any one
else, remained by it steadfastly and defended it constantly
until he died. Shortly before his death, in his last
confession, he repeated his faith in this article with great
fervor and wrote as follows: 'I reckon them all as belonging
together (that is, as Sacramentarians and enthusiasts), for
that is what they are who will not believe that the Lord's
bread in the supper is his true, natural body, which the
godless or Judas receive orally as well as St. Peter and all
the saints. Whoever, I say, will not believe this, will
please let me alone and expect no fellowship from me. This is
final.'"
[61]
Cf. "Theology of Fellowship," p. 18. "Though the subject
of pulpit and altar fellowship is not discussed expressis
verbis in the Lutheran Confessions, these confessions
themselves became the effective limits for pulpit and altar
fellowship for Lutherans. Those who subscribed to them were
automatically in pulpit and altar fellowship with one
another. Those who did not subscribe to them, but adhered to
other confessions, were, according to the Preface to the
Book of Concord, not condemned as heretics; the Lutherans
could even 'have special sympathy with them.' However, church
fellowship, communicatio in sacris, with them was
impossible. This followed inevitably from the doctrine of the
church as it is contained in the Lutheran Confessions."
[62]
Ibid., p. 19: "Free conferences for members from all
Lutheran groups who 'subscribed to the Augsburg Confession
without reservation' were held for the purpose of discussion
of doctrine at Columbus, Ohio, in 1856; at Pittsburgh, Pa.,
in 1857; at Cleveland, Ohio, in 1858; and at Ft. Wayne, Ind.,
in 1859."
[63]
There was disagreement on the question as to whether
pastors and congregations should subscribe to The Book of
Concord insofar as (quatenus) or because (quia) it is a
true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word
of God.
[64]
In 1872 President C.P. Krauth set forth the General
Council's understanding of pulpit and altar fellowship: "I.
The Rule is: Lutheran pulpits are for Lutheran ministers
only. Lutheran altars are for Lutheran communicants only. II.
The Exceptions belong to the sphere of privilege, not of
right. III. The determination of the exceptions is to be made
in consonance with these principles, by the conscientious
judgment of pastors, as the cases arise." This statement was
amended by the addition after the word "Rule" of "which
accords with the Word of God and with the Confessions of our
Church" at an 1875 conference held in Galesburg, Ill.--hence
the name "Galesburg Rule" (The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran
Church, 1965 ed., s.v. "Galesburg Rule").
[65]
Separatism, defined by Webster's Third New
International Dictionary as "a disposition toward secession
or schism," is an ecclesiastical term used to refer to a
separation between Christians for unscriptural reasons. The
constitution of the LCMS states in its first objective that
the Synod 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 (Rom. 16:17), and heresy" (Convention
Proceedings, 1979, p. 104).
[66]
Unionism, defined by the Synod as "church-fellowship
with the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to
God's command, as causing divisions in the Church, Rom 16:17;
2 John 9, 10, and as involving the constant danger of losing
the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2:17-21" (see the "Brief
Statement," par. 28), is a term which has come into use in
connection with the efforts of King Friedrich Wilhelm II of
Prussia to effect a union of the Lutheran and Reformed
churches in his realm in 1817. The constitution of the LCMS
lists as one of the conditions of membership the
"renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every
description" (Art. VI, 2).
[67]
See "Theology of Fellowship," pp. 20 f. Cf. also C.F.W.
Walther, "Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers, and Professors
Subscribe Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our
Church," Concordia Theological Monthly (April 1947), pp.
241-53.
[68]
Charter members of this organization were six synods
which had previously declared themselves to be in altar and
pulpit fellowship with each other.
[69]
Resolution 3-15, Convention Proceedings, 1969, pp. 96
ff. This understanding of the meaning of pulpit and altar
fellowship had previously been accepted in substance by the
national and District presidents of The American Lutheran
Church and The Missouri Synod.
[70]
Cf. Toward Fellowship, p. 13. This brochure was
distributed throughout the LCMS by President Oliver Harms
prior to 1969 in response to 1967 Resolution 3-23. This
document states: "The same doctrinal requirements obtain for
establishing church merger as for establishing altar and
pulpit fellowship. The practice of fellowship would be
essentially the same under either arrangement. Either
arrangement offers the same demands and the same latitude
with respect to fellowship. If church bodies wish to form a
church merger or some other type of association, then it is
assumed they are prepared to make the necessary structural
or organizational adjustments. Under the altar and pulpit
fellowship being proposed now, The Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod will be free to give full expression to its fraternal
relations while maintaining simultaneously its operational
and institutional autonomy." Cf. also 1971 Resolution 3-26,
which states: "Resolved, That The Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod restate its desire to initiate and work toward
fellowship with those Lutheran churches with whom it is not
in altar and pulpit fellowship, and continue to work toward a
greater degree of unity with those with whom it is in altar
and pulpit fellowship, and that the activity proceed as
follows: 1) Multilevel discussion of the Scriptures and the
Lutheran Confessions with those Lutheran churches with whom
we are not in fellowship in order to seek agreement in
doctrine and practice leading to a declaration of altar and
pulpit fellowship. These discussions may serve to provide
guidelines for additional cooperative activity; 2)
Declaration of altar and pulpit fellowship by a majority vote
of the church delegates assembled in church convention after
the President of the Synod and the CTCR make a recommendation
in the matter; 3) Continued negotiations to find the proper
ensuing steps to implement additional forms of cooperative
activity; and be it further Resolved, That The Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod express the position that, at this
time, it is primarily oriented toward altar and pulpit
fellowship and further cooperative activities, rather than
organic union" (Convention Proceedings, 1971, p. 139).
[71]
Cf. "A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism," p. 9: "Since
the sphere of ecumenical endeavors is properly the Una
Sancta, it is self- evident that the goal of such efforts is
not to create the unity of the church (unitas, Einigkeit der
Kirche). The unitas of the Una Sancta is given with the
faith that joins all Christians to their one Head, Christ,
and to each other in the little holy flock which is without
sect or schism (LC, II, 51). The unity of the church is the
presupposition, not the goal, of ecumenical endeavors (AC,
Preface, 10)."
[72]
Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First
Four Centuries, p. 4. Elert points out that Martin Luther
also understood fellowship in this way. Says Elert: "Luther
proceeded differently. He was uneasy about the theological
use of the word fellowship (Gemeinschaft). Even in
translating 1 Cor. 10:16 he hesitated to use it. In his
Large Confession of the Lord's Supper (1528) he traced the
misunderstanding of his opponents partially to this word. 'It
is not the genuinely German equivalent as I would like to
have it, for to have fellowship is ordinarily understood as
meaning to have something to do with a person. Here (1 Cor.
10:16), however, it means, as I have explained earlier, many
using, enjoying, or having part in a common thing. I have had
to translate 'fellowship' because I simply could not find a
better word.'"
[73]
Ibid., p. 3. Elert attributes this understanding of
fellowship to the continuing influence of Friedrich
Schleiermacher. Writes Elert (p. 2): "For him
[Schleiermacher] the church is above all 'a fellowship'
(Gemeinschaft). He says in his Glaubenslehre (Par. 2, 2)
that in order to know what the Christian church is one must
first establish the general concept of the church together
with a right understanding of what is characteristically
Christian.' He goes on to say, 'The general concept of the
church, if there is to be such a thing, must be derived from
ethics because the church at all events is a fellowship
created by the voluntary actions of men, and only through
these does it continue to exist.' That certainly fixes the
idea of fellowship. Since a fellowship arises through the
voluntary actions of men and continues to exist only through
such actions, the church, since it is a fellowship, arises in
the same way, that is, only through 'the voluntary actions of
men.' ... The concept of fellowship which is here said to
characterize the church does not derive from the nature of
the church, but the nature of the church is derived from the
concept of fellowship. ... Behind this procedure lies the
idealist conception of man and a view of the church which
already has a long history with the English Independents and
in the German Enlightenment."
[74]
In making this recommendation the CTCR is renewing a
recommendation which it made in its 1966 report "Theology of
Fellowship." See the "Suggested Guidelines for the Church in
the Practice of Fellowship" (pp. 29-30). In this report the
Commission made several recommendations (referred to as
"Scripturally sound, and in harmony with the Lutheran
Confessions"), including the following: "Our Synod should
treasure the fellowship in the Gospel and in the sacraments
which it enjoys with its sister churches and which it
expressed through what is usually called pulpit and altar
fellowship, and it should foster this fellowship with all
diligence. ... Our Synod should work zealously for the
extension of this fellowship by engaging in doctrinal
discussions with other churches in the interest of achieving
such fellowship where this can be done without compromising
sound doctrine. ... Our Synod will be well advised to retain
the principle that Scriptural practice is important for
church fellowship. When ecclesiastical practice is in harmony
with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, the church is
edified. On the other hand, when ecclesiastical practice
constitutes a denial of the Gospel, the work of the church is
undermined." This report was adopted by the Synod in 1967
(Res. 2-13).
[75]
Church body A is in altar and pulpit fellowship with
church body B but not church body C, while church body B is
in fellowship with both church body A and church body C.
[76]
Article VI of the constitution of The Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod, for example, requires the
renunciation of "taking part in the services and sacramental
rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed
confession."
[77]
Cf. Roland Wiederaenders, Circuit Counselor's Manual,
rev. ed., 1979, p. 5: "All the members of the Synod,
congregations, pastors and teachers are to consider the rules
and regulations of the Synod as applicable to them.
Resolutions of the Synod are to be respected not because the
Synod is a legislative body which legislates for its members,
but because such resolutions are the expression of the
majority and because Christian love asks that for the sake of
peace and harmony we submit ourselves one to another in the
fear of God. If a congregation or another member of the Synod
is convinced that a resolution is not in harmony with the
Word of God, such a member should seek to demonstrate that
conviction from holy Scripture, not merely to assert that it
is a conviction and ignore the resolutions of the Synod. Such
resolutions of the Synod are adopted in order to carry out
the objectives of the Synod--objectives to which members of
the Synod pledge themselves when they sign the constitution
of the Synod."
