INTER-CHRISTIAN RELATIONSHIPS An Instrument for Study A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod February 1991 Part 2 _III. Theological Implications_ _A. Because the faithful use of the Gospel in Word and sacraments is the key element in all dimensions of inter-Christian relationships, it must also be regarded as the central measure or criterion of inter-Christian activity._ In applying Biblical principles to questions of inter-Christian associations and activities, our basic task is to determine the relationship of that activity to the faithful use of the means of grace. Fellowship with other Christians at the altar or in the preaching of the Word of God is clearly the pinnacle of inter-Christian relationships. Questions directly associated with the use of the means of grace lie at the very center of our concerns for proper relationships with other Christians. At the same time, we recognize that joint efforts in the area of social ministry or in issues affecting the church as an institution do not ordinarily pertain directly to the use of Word and sacraments and therefore can usually be carried out with less than full doctrinal agreement. Even then, Christians I will of course avoid giving the impression by such joint efforts that full doctrinal agreement exists when in fact it is lacking. The central role of the means of grace in our understanding of inter- Christian relationships explains the reasons why we distinguish between "communion or fellowship in sacred things" (_communio in sacris_) and "cooperation in externals" (_cooperatio in externis_). The former term pertains to the highest and deepest kind of communion or fellowship, namely, the joint use of the means of grace, while the latter refers to matters that are not directly related to the proclamation of the Word and administration of the sacraments, i.e., _external_ to the use of the means of grace. As useful as this distinction is in principle (because it is made on the basis of the means of grace), it is nevertheless subject to considerable confusion because of the term _externals_. That a given activity is _external_ to the use of the means of grace does not mean we are to regard such an activity as necessarily optional or to be excluded from the church's calling. For instance, cooperation in caring for refugees may not involve the joint use of Word and sacraments, but this certainly in no way diminishes the importance of such common work as a fitting response to the Lord's command to love our neighbor. Additionally, we must recognize that not all Christian activities fit neatly into one or the other category. With that understanding, however, measuring proposed activities in terms of their relationship to the means of grace remains central to a confessional Lutheran approach to questions of inter-Christian relationships. _B. Consensus in the confession of the Gospel has a higher priority than organizational or structural unity._ The assembling of individual Christians to form congregations should be understood as part of God's will for his church, for it entails the gathering of believers around Word and sacraments, which are the divinely appointed means through which the Holy Spirit creates, nurtures, and sustains the church. The gathering of congregations into synods, denominations, and other ecclesiastical organizations has not been divinely mandated. However, organizational or structural expressions of unity are very important and should not be underestimated. Ordinarily, the structures and organizations used by Christians are intended to reflect an underlying unity of commitment, conviction, and purpose. Moreover, such organizations or structures can greatly enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Christian individuals and congregations in carrying out the mission of the church. It can also be cogently argued that ecclesiastical structures at the denominational level also have a certain churchly character because of the functions assigned to them by their constituencies. Comprehensive consensus in the confession of the Gospel is surely a prerequisite for congregational life and action. When several congregations decide to join together in a trans-congregational structure (which we call a _denomination_ or _church body_) in order to carry out their mission more effectively, such structures, too, presuppose comprehensive consensus in the confession of the Biblical Gospel. There is a tendency in our time to regard denominational mergers or memberships in ecumenical organizations as somehow accomplishing or signifying progress in the continuing quest for Christian unity. However, unless such organizational consolidation represents or strengthens consensus in the confession of the Gospel, this assumption needs to be challenged. _C. Inter-Christian activities are confessional acts._ Whether we speak of the involvements and activities of individuals, congregations, or church bodies, we must recognize that what we do in this area, or fail to do, bears witness to a greater or lesser extent to _what_ we ourselves believe as well as to our _perception_ of the beliefs of those with whom we relate. In determining whether a contemplated action should be done or not, it is therefore extremely important to consider the witness it will give. As Christians engaged in carrying out Christ's mission, we will want to ask such important questions as, Will the action give a false or unclear witness about God's truth? Will it manifest the kind of love for the brother or sister that includes concern for their doctrinal position? Will it give evidence of the unity which the Spirit gives? Will our failure to be involved with other Christians in a given activity advance or retard the faithful proclamation of the Gospel? The answers to such questions may be extremely difficult to establish with certainty and may differ depending on whether relationships are between individuals, congregations, or church bodies. However, the effort to do so must necessarily be made. _D. Fidelity to God's truth involves the avoidance of both unionism and separatism._ Throughout our synodical history, the attempt to be faithful to God's truth has led us to recognize that it is necessary to follow a policy of "separation" from Christians whose doctrine is persistently contrary to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. To be sure, the passages of Scripture which command such separation from certain persons, teachings, and practices cannot be applied easily or automatically to many contemporary situations. However, such texts clearly articulate the principle that It is the will of God himself that his people avoid those whose false teachings and/or separatistic, schismatic, and factious activities attack the Gospel and our Christian faith or confession. For this reason, we have believed it necessary to remain apart from a number of other Christian groups or activities, even as we are to admonish those contentious persons among us "who constantly seek to 'expose' the error of others, and so incite quarrels and division among us."[13] By the same token, we have found it necessary to remind ourselves from time to time that the Biblical principle of separation is quite different from _separatism_. The former is an avoidance based on Scriptural reasons, while separatism is an avoidance of other Christians without adequate Scriptural foundation. Separatism may be necessary for the sake of God's truth, but separatism sins against love and divides the church. When practical questions arise in the area of inter-Christian relationships, it is therefore imperative that the Christian community exercise due caution and restraint before invoking the principle of separation. And in every case, such separation is not the first approach, but a last resort that follows appropriate fraternal admonition.. Closely related has been the Synod's longstanding concern to repudiate what we call _unionism_.[14] As an ecclesiastical term, unionism came into use in connection with effort in Prussian to effect a union of Lutheran and Reformed churches in 1817. That union was to be accomplished by declaring the doctrines which divided the two confessions to be differences in nonessentials. Our synodical founders rejected unionism and its infringement of the Gospel. Because this term and the related term _syncretism_ identified efforts to achieve or reflect union without the removal of doctrinal differences, this terminology was also used by our synodical fathers to condemn similar efforts at a union short of full doctrinal agreement. To this day, Article VI of the synodical Constitution makes the "renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description" one of the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod.[15] In the course of synodical history, the term unionism was broadened to apply various forms of worship and work carried out by Christians who were not wholly agreed in doctrine and practice. The 1932 _Brief Statement_ of the Synod states, "We repudiate unionism, that is, church-fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God's command, as causing divisions in the Church. . .and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely.''[l6] From time to time, individuals in the Synod have expanded the meaning of the term to include several types of joint ecclesiastical activity, including joint public prayer with other Christians. What, may we ask, is the precise meaning of the terminology employed in Article VI of the Constitution of the Synod? Article VI states that "renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description" is one of the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod. As one specific example of such unionism and syncretism, Article VI identifies "taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession."[l7] It is the conviction of the Synod that such actions violate the Biblical truth principle by implying either that doctrinal differences do not exist or that they are unimportant. Deliberate failure to observe this constitutional position breaks our synodical agreement with one another, confuses our common witness, creates discord among us, and is a stumbling block to the Gospel. Some key words in this article should be carefully noted, however. _Unionism_ and _syncretism_, as explained above, designate doctrinal indifference and/or compromise in the practice of church fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine. These terms do not refer to every joint Christian activity. _Heterodox congregations_ are those whose doctrinal position is contrary to Holy Scripture, as demonstrated either by their own official statements or by their uncritical identification with and acceptance of such a doctrinal position officially held by the church body to which they belong. _Congregations of mixed confession_ refer to those who officially subscribe to both the Lutheran confessional writings and to non- Lutheran doctrinal statements or positions. _Services and sacramental rites_ refer primarily to the regular and official public and corporate worship services of such congregations. _Taking part in_ such services and rites refers both to the conducting of worship services or portions thereof by pastors and to the official sponsorship or involvement of congregations as such in worship services, as distinguished from the occasional attendance by individuals of the Synod at the services of heterodox denominations (such as weddings or funerals). _Membership_ refers to the status of congregations, pastors, teachers, and deaconesses who have formally signed the Constitution of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. Technically, it does not refer to the baptized and communicant members of synodical congregations. In summary, because of the variations in understanding and defining unionism within the Synod, it may be useful to focus on the meaning of the term in its original historical context and its usage in official documents of the Synod. Properly understood, _unionism_ does not describe various forms of joint Christian activity _per se_. Rather, its essence is _church fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine_, and it entails doctrinal indifference and/or compromise. As such, the condemnation of _unionism_ has been and remains an important application of the truth principle because it bids us to examine proposed practices and alliances in terms of whether they entail doctrinal indifference, compromise, or the practice of church fellowship without prior agreement in Biblical doctrine. _E. Complete agreement in confessional doctrine and practice is not necessary for every inter-Christian or interdenominational action. On the basis of the Biblical principles of fellowship we must insist that expressions of Christian unity be proportionate to the measure of consensus in confessing the Biblical Gospel that we enjoy with the other Christians involved. While not articulated in detail in official synodical documents, this has been in fact the Synod's way of proceeding for many years. According to our understanding of the Scriptures and the Lutheran confessional writings, full agreement in the whole body of Biblical doctrine is the goal of church fellowship discussions. However, this should not be understood to mean that such total agreement is necessary for _all_ joint Christian associations or activities. Historically, our Synod's readiness to cooperate with other Christians _in externals_ on the basis of less than full doctrinal agreement is illustrative of this position. Our cooperation with the National Lutheran Council during World War II, as well as our membership in the Lutheran Council of the U.S.A. throughout its existence (1966-87), are further illustrations of this point. At the parish level, many synodical congregations have found ways to cooperate with neighboring congregations of other denominations in ways that do not compromise confessional doctrine or practice. As part of the process when individuals, congregations, and the Synod as a whole consider involvement in various joint associations or endeavors, it is important that we encourage one another to raise the question of the amount of doctrinal agreement that exists and then to determine the kinds of joint activity that are consistent with that agreement. Also to be considered as part of this process are the goals or purposes to be accomplished by the association (for example, do they compromise our doctrinal position?). F. Commitment to the corporate position and actions of a confessional fellowship also involves pastoral care situations requiring sensitivity, understanding, and acceptance among the membership. Among contemporary Christians divergence from the official positions of church bodies is relatively common. Such divergence is often as great among the members of a church body as it is between the members of separate denominational fellowships, making membership somewhat ambiguous. In this increasingly complex situation our pastors, congregations, and synodical officials are called upon to make judgments about the permissibility and desirability of actions in a manner that reveals both a commitment to the corporate agreements of the Synod and a sensitivity to individual cases where exceptions must be made in the interest of exercising responsible pastoral care. This has been the long-standing approach of our Missouri Synod fathers and explains why they, too, recognized the existence of "felicitous inconsistencies."[18] The Synod's historic joining of agreement in doctrine _and practice_ as a prerequisite for church fellowship presupposes that our actions are always necessarily confessional acts. They bear witness _to what_ we believe and confess concerning the truth of the Gospel, and therefore must continually be evaluated with utmost seriousness. The decisions of the Synod have specified certain actions required for a united witness to the truth. The Synod's continued existence as a strong confessional church demands a firm commitment to these agreements. But it must also be observed that the Synod, though not always expressing it in official doctrinal formulations and agreements, has throughout its history recognized the freedom and the necessity of its pastors and congregations to minister individually to Christians of other denominations when truly exceptional circumstances exist or arise. Emergency medical situations, for example, have long been regarded within the pastoral ministry of the Synod as requiring; special consideration. In times of war, and in dealing with the military community generally, our Synod has acknowledged the importance of providing pastoral care appropriate to each situation. The agreement established as an outgrowth of World War II provided the following: "In exceptional situations, where a member of one group earnestly seeks admission to the Lord's Supper conducted by. . .the other group, the individual case in each instance will be considered by the pastor concerned. It is agreed that in such cases particular synodical membership of a Lutheran in the armed forces shall not be a required condition for admission to the Lord's Supper."[l9] A similar "pastoral care" situation was recognized by the 1975 synodical convention with reference to campus ministries.[20] When the Synod discontinued its official fellowship relationship with The American Lutheran Church in 1981, the Synod noted that it "has long encouraged its congregations and pastors in extraordinary circumstances to provide responsible pastoral care, including the administration of Holy Communion to Christians who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS." The Synod, therefore, granted that its congregations and pastors were free to provide responsible pastoral care to individuals of The American Lutheran Church as circumstances warrant.[21] We need to reaffirm and maintain the freedom and responsibility of congregations, both pastors and people, to provide responsible pastoral care to Christian individuals as spiritual needs require. Let it be understood, however, that such situations do not establish the rationale for our synodical corporate actions and witness, nor ought the exception become the rule. Moreover, in such pastoral care situations, officials of the Synod, as well as pastors, congregations, and others, must take care to insure that the immediately affected Christian community is fully informed of the action and understands it as an attempt to be faithful to the Gospel. Finally, the entire Synod must be encouraged to respect the integrity of such pastoral care actions. It is far more in keeping with Christian love to assume that such actions have been taken responsibly than that such actions represent liberal tendencies, doctrinal compromise, or lack of concern for the confessional convictions of the Synod. _G. Motivated by the Gospel to maintain its God-given unity, the church will exercise fraternal and evangelical Christian discipline toward those whose life or doctrine contradicts the teaching of Holy Scripture and vitiates or denies the Gospel of Jesus Christ._ The presence of error among Christians is always a matter of grave concern and therefore necessitates the application of Christian discipline. However, the intrusion of error is not immediate grounds for separation or the suspension of church fellowship. Heresy is the _persistent_ and _willful_ advocacy of error, and erring Christians--whether individuals or churches-- need our earnest efforts to correct them before we take the always regrettable ultimate step of separation. But doctrinal discipline is necessary for the preservation of the pure proclamation of the Gospel among us; for the toleration of error does not build or sustain the church nor edify its individual members. It is important that Christian individuals, as well as congregations, realize their personal responsibility for fraternal admonition and counsel toward other Christians. All of us, pastors and laity, need to be informed about what is being taught, preached and written in the church so we can exercise a mutual ministry of concern and support toward each other. Moreover it is imperative that persons responsible for the public supervision of doctrine and life such as pastors and presidents of synodical districts, exercise that responsibility faithfully and evangelically. Those who are not called by the church to this servant ministry should make ever effort to assist and support them and to avoid the caricatures and public criticism that constitute sin against both love and truth--and ultimately against the Gospel. _IV Counsel for Specific Situations_ Christians who strive to be faithful to _all_ that the Scriptures say concerning inter-Christian relationships frequently finds themselves caught in a seemingly irresolvable tension between the uncompromising testimony to the Biblical faith and the application of Scriptural principles to the situations of life. On the one hand, the Gospel as proclaimed by the apostles cannot suffer _any_ addition or subtraction without endangering faith and salvation of people. Just as the sinner cannot without great peril, "partially" repent, holding on to some sin as if it need not be forgiven, so also the believer cannot choose to be faithful to only a portion of "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). At the same time, however, we Christians realize that we do not live in a perfect world in which decisions can be made without tension between and among Biblical principle of truth, unity, and love. It simply is not possible to make decisions in the area of inter-Christian relationships that are free from the ambiguities of human judgment. We proceed, therefore, in the confidence that the Lord of the church imparts his Spirit to those who ask, granting us wisdom to know and do what pleases him and serves his divine purposes on earth. The counsel which follows is offered with the humble recognition that all our deliberations in this area must be subject to the Word of God and its unchangeable truth. In the interest of stimulating discussion of how one moves from Biblical principles to the actual application of those principles, the Commission has appended to this section the three case studies which have been used in previous discussions in the CTCR's study process (Appendix A). Also noted in this section are other references which are intended to facilitate discussion of the issues commonly faced by our people. In addition, the reader will find useful sample discussion questions included at the end of each of the sections which follow. Since this is a study document, the participation and reaction of the reader is encouraged. _A. Joint Worship Occasions_ It is the official position of the Synod that its members--pastors, teachers, and congregations of the Synod--are free to lead or sponsor joint public worship services only with its partner/sister churches, and church bodies with whom the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship.[22] However, two questions are sometimes raised in our midst about the application of Article VI of the Constitution of the Synod to certain other situations. One is whether the restrictions of Article VI necessarily apply to taking part in special services sponsored jointly by associations or groups of churches not in church fellowship with each other and intended for Christians of several or all denominations in a given area. Examples might be a pan-Lutheran service to commemorate the Lutheran Reformation, a community service of thanksgiving, or an interdenominational service of prayer (for example, for a greater measure of doctrinal unity on the basis of God's Word, for good crops, for success in combating moral evils such as abortion, discrimination, or pornography, or for divine help in times of war or other crises). A second question is whether the restrictions of Article VI necessarily apply to taking part in certain occasional joint activities or gatherings at which worship takes place, as distinguished from the regular and official public and corporate worship services of congregations. Examples would include joint Christian celebrations, gatherings, rallies, convocations, commencements, baccalaureates, dedications, exhibitions, pageants, concerts, colloquia, other conferences, and other public events. The purposes of such activities might include the commemoration of a significant event in our Lutheran history; the education of participants in one or more aspects of Christian history or doctrine or in a subject of special; interest or importance to all participating church bodies; the exchange of information and viewpoints on issues that divide participants from each other or unite them in a common cause; or mutual encouragement in various cooperative civic or humanitarian causes. It is our judgment that Article VI and other official statements of the Synod do not explicitly address all such questions and circumstances. Therefore they would limit the participation of synodical pastors, teachers, deaconesses, and congregations in such events only when doctrinal compromise might be involved. More importantly, we believe that under certain circumstances it would be fully consistent with the Biblical principles of fellowship for the members of the Synod to attend or to participate in the conducting; or sponsorship of such events or activities. Those circumstances would include the following considerations:[23] 1. The event is not to imply that doctrinal unity exists among sponsors or participants. In fact, out of concern for the witness given by such events, it may be desirable that participants openly acknowledge and express, in a positive and sensitive manner, the existence of doctrinal differences. 2. The purpose of the event or activity is to be fully consistent with the positions, policies, and objectives of the Synod. 3. Care has been taken to inform and to listen to the counsel of other synodical pastors and congregations in the neighborhood or community, or any others in the synodical fellowship who may be rightly concerned about the witness given by the event or activity. 4. Permission to conduct, co-sponsor, or participate in the event has been granted by the responsible synodical official (namely, district presidents for events within their districts, and the synodical president for regional, national, or international events). _Discussion Questions_ 1. In practice, if not in theory, a distinction is sometimes made in our midst between inter-Christian events which involve joint public worship services and those which do not. What criteria might be employed to make this kind of a distinction? 2. In the previous section the Commission has stated that "inter-Christian activities are confessional acts." Hence, the witness given by specific events becomes a consideration. What Biblical references would suggest that this is a workable criterion in the Synod for judging the appropriateness of an inter-Christian activity? What pastoral concerns need to be brought to bear on decisions in this area of our church life? _B. Ecumenical Wedding Services_ In the mid-seventies, the Synod gave considerable attention to the fact that in mixed marriages the pastors of both parties to the marriage are being invited with increasing frequency to participate in the wedding service. At that time, the Synod's Commission on Worship, Commission on Theology and Church Relations, and Council of Presidents all considered various aspects of this question and issued opinions. Thereafter, the 1977 synodical convention affirmed the validity of Article VI of the synodical Constitution with reference to this matter and stated the Synod's expectation that our pastors and congregations would follow this article with respect to mixed wedding ceremonies.[24] Since that time, many pastors and congregations of the Synod have found it both possible and pastoral to apply the advice of the Council of Presidents, which stated that participation in such marriage ceremonies should "not be as co-officiant, worship leader, or celebrant, but should be arranged in such a way that it is not an official part of the worship service, nor a solemnizing or celebrating of the marriage."[25] Typically, this has meant that the guest pastor brings a brief word of greeting, perhaps including an appropriate Scripture verse and prayer immediately before or after the wedding service proper, that is, immediately after the processional or just before the recessional. There are situations, however, where the application of this resolution has not worked out well in practice but has, on the contrary, provided an occasion for a confusing witness to the truth, unity, and love principles. This is especially the case where congregations in the same part of the country have differed widely in their interpretation of the precise meaning of the "participation in such marriage ceremonies" which is allowable in the advice offered by the Council of Presidents' guidelines. Because this question is one which arises with such frequency, the Commission believes that it deserves special attention in this report. In fact, it can serve as a case study in the practical application of the basic Biblical concepts which should inform our relationships to brothers and sisters in Christ in church bodies not in doctrinal agreement with The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.[26] As congregations and pastors of Synod respond to requests to participate in mixed marriage wedding services, there are a number of basic realities and concerns which need to be taken into account-concern for the wedding couple and their families as well as for the witness given to the wider community of believers both in congregations and in the community at large. First of all, the truth principle demands recognition of the fact that there are vitally important differences in the confession of the Gospel in the two traditions to which the prospective marriage partners belong. Nothing should be done in the wedding service which would serve to minimize these differences or give the impression that they are insignificant or of no consequence. At the same time, the unity principle also demands a recognition of the fact that in mixed Christian marriages we are proceeding on the basis of the assumption that we are dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we are one in the body of Christ and for whom we desire to manifest love. Furthermore, our desire is to do all that we can do, short of compromising the truth of the Gospel, to bring God's Word and the prayers of God's people to bear on this marriage union. It is also important to keep in mind the nature of wedding service performed in the church. Such a wedding is a public worship service conducted under the jurisdiction and supervision of the congregation. At the same time, it differs from the regular and official _services and sacramental rites_ of a congregation in that it is held at the specific request of the wedding couple and in order to perform a rite in behalf of the state (and thus possesses an _occasional_ nature). The consideration of participation in mixed wedding services needs to take all of these factors into account. The major concern of all involved in such decisions is that the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ be brought to bear on this marriage and that a clear consistent witness be given. Respect for the worship practices of the church should be engendered by a careful explanation of their meaning and rationale, thus avoiding as much as possible the impression that worship life in the congregation is mere adherence to rules. It is the opinion of the CTCR that ordinarily the suggestions offered at the beginning of this section can serve well to take into account the basic principle of truth, unity and love. Under no circumstances should joint communion be celebrated. But there will be occasions when the circumstances and _pastoral care concerns_ call for responsible flexibility. Responses to invitations to participate in mixed marriage ceremonies should be consistent with the considerations given in the previous section of this document entitled "Joint Worship Occasions" (see pp. 33-35). In this connection the Commission would call attention to words which it included in an earlier report: It must also be recognized that unusual and difficult situations can and do arise in this world. Responsible commitment to our mutually agreed-upon fellowship policies does not mean legalistic slavery to rules. Rather, this very commitment itself demands freedom for responsible pastoral ministry. When, in certain unusual circumstances, our regular way of proceeding would get in the way of a ministry of Word and sacrament to a person in spiritual need, then an alternative way of proceeding must be sought. In such cases the advice and counsel of brothers in the ministry can be of inestimable value. It should also be recognized that individuals equally committed to the Scriptural principles of fellowship may not always come to identical conclusions regarding specific ways of proceeding in administering pastoral care in such exceptional cases. _Discussion Questions_ 1. Is the distinction between regular and official _services and sacramental rites_ of a congregation and an occasional service usable for evaluating the appropriateness of an ecumenical wedding service? 2. Is it possible for the Biblical mandate to confess the truth to be compromised by allowing no joint participation in wedding services? Give an example and discuss. 3. In your judgment, is the guideline of the Council of Presidents as presented in 1977 Resolution 3-25 "To Speak Regarding Lutheran/non-Lutheran Weddings" (see p. 35 above) a pastorally responsible way to deal with requests for joint participation in wedding services? Is it adequate? Inadequate? Explain. _C. Membership in Councils, Federations of Churches, and Para- denominational Associations_ Merger, organic union, and the establishment of altar and pulpit fellowship are based on comprehensive doctrinal agreement, while federations, councils, or ministerial associations usually represent efforts to provide structures for achieving such agreement and/or for carrying out work and activities consistent with the mission of the church. Membership in such federations or councils is permissible whenever (a) its doctrinal basis is consistent with the Synod's; (b) membership would assist the attainment of doctrinal agreement where it does not exist; (c) the federation, council, or association as such does not engage in activity which would identify it as a church; (d) membership would not imply that member churches are in doctrinal agreement when in fact they are not; (e) membership would not identify member churches with undesirable or questionable positions or activities of the organization as a whole or with any of its member churches. When such concerns are adequately met, membership becomes primarily a question of feasibility. When contemplating membership in national or international councils and federations, it is imperative that the understandings and concerns of partner/sister churches be considered and respected. On the local and regional levels, similar concern should be displayed for the opinions and sensitivities of other members of the Synod, especially in the immediate neighborhood, and for receiving the counsel of the district president. Similar considerations as those expressed above apply for membership and participation in a number of para-denominational organizations and activities. To the extent that such organizations are clearly involved in efforts that are compatible with our own principles and policies, our members should be encouraged rather than cautioned about involvement. Similarly, a number of neighborhood, community, or business-related Christian activities, such as Bible study groups or prayer breakfasts, frequently attract members of our congregations. In all such cases, our lay members are encouraged to seek the counsel of their pastors to assist them in making a faithful confession of Biblical doctrine as they meet with other Christians. In offering counsel, pastors will warn against the uncritical acceptance of teachings and materials that are contrary to Scriptural and confessional doctrine, while at the same time urging the kind of witness that will the respect of those who hear. Such activities often provide a fine opportunity to bear witness both to the truth of the Gospel and to the unity of all Christians within the body of Christ, while also providing informal opportunities to remove caricatures and misunderstandings that have plagued inter-Christian relationships for decades. _Discussion Questions+ 1. What factors should pastors take into account at the local level when considering membership in a ministerial alliance? Under what conditions would such membership be advisable? Inadvisable? 2. What advice would you offer to a member of your congregation who is struggling with a decision as to whether to continue participation in a neighborhood Bible Study that has "unLutheran" emphases? 3. Under what circumstances would it be proper for a member of the Synod to belong to a national or international council when such membership may involve endorsement of some positions and/or activities which conflict with synodical positions? _D. Admission to the Lord's Supper_ _Admission_ to the Lord's Supper as a responsibility of the church presupposes that Christ has entrusted to it the faithful administration of the sacrament. Significantly, the apostle Paul solemnly reminds the _congregation_ at Corinth (the _you_ of 1 Cor. 11:23 is plural) of what constitutes faithful use of the sacrament (just as also individual members of the congregation are surely addressed). The apostle impresses upon the church that not only is Jesus himself the food and drink of the meal, but he is also the host. Therefore, his instructions regarding the meaning and use of the sacrament are to be heeded for the sake of the spiritual benefit and welfare of those who commune. Indeed, _the church_ is called to a faithful stewardship of this sacred treasure (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1). St. Paul reminds us that when Christians commune together they engage in a corporate act of confession and proclamation. He exhorts the Corinthians: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you [plural] proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). That proclamation embraces the entire Christian Gospel as we know it from Holy Scripture, including the reality of Christ's body and blood present in the Lord's Supper where he offers all the blessings of his redemptive work to all who believe in him. Because fellowship at the Lord's Table is a confession of a common faith, it would not be truthful for those who affirm the _real presence_ of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament to join those who deny it at the altar. Their common _communion_ confession would give witness that the last will and testament of Christ can rightly be interpreted in contradictory ways. Only those who share in a common confession of faith should commune together. For this reason, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod follows the historic practice of close(d) communion, which regards unity of doctrine as a prerequisite for admission to the sacrament.[28] Close(d) communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith where there is diversity and disagreement. It would be neither faithful to the Scriptural requirements for admission to Holy Communion (1 Cor. 11:27ff; cf. 10:16-17) nor in keeping with the corporate nature of this sacrament for a Christian congregation to welcome to its altar those who do not share a common confession of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Communing at the Lord's table is also an individual action. Each communicant who eats and drinks the body and blood of the Lord in faith receives the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Personal examination and preparation help individual communicants receive the sacrament worthily, that is, as Christians who recognize and repent of their sins and who truly believe that the crucified and risen Christ is present in his body and blood given in the sacrament and is received for the forgiveness of their sins. The fact that Holy Communion is both a corporate and an individual action has implications for admission to the Lord's Supper. Because of the corporate nature of the Lord's Supper, pastors and congregations bear a responsibility in helping to counsel and support one another in their life together: --to help communicants know the very nature of the Lord's Supper; --to help communicants judge the state of their own readiness for receiving Christ's body and blood in the sacrament; --to help individual communicants understand that communing is a confessional act that identifies the communicant with the corporate confession of the host congregation; --to help communicants understand and accept the responsibilities involved in being under the spiritual care of their pastor. Bulletin announcements, communion cards, sermons, and especially personal visits with communicants continue to provide many occasions for assisting individual communicants in approaching the Lord's table responsibly and joyfully. This involves both personal spiritual preparation and a clear sense of identifying with the corporate doctrinal confession of the host congregation. Congregations also have an important responsibility to see to it that those desiring to commune are provided with opportunities for spiritual counsel before communing. Congregations, assisted by their pastor, have a special responsibility! for helping communicants understand that their communing with that congregation entails acceptance of that congregation s confession of faith, and for helping guests understand what that confession is. Where communicants cannot joyfully embrace the confession of the host congregation, they should not commune. Although Holy Communion is a corporate action, a heavy responsibility nonetheless also rests on the individual Christian in deciding whether to participate in a congregational communion service. Pastoral counseling and congregational practices such as confession and absolution, confirmation instructions, and announcement can be helpful in assisting the individual communicant to commune worthily and beneficially at the Lord's Table. The preaching and teaching activities of the pastor should include instruction regarding communion practices, especially for the purpose of assisting members of the congregation as they, too, provide information to prospective guests. In the one New Testament epistle that explicitly treats the practice of Holy Communion (1 Corinthians). St. Paul's admonitions include especially the necessity of personal self-examination on the part of individuals present. These warnings were aimed at a community fractured by heresy and violations of Christian love. Abuses in the church at Corinth were serious and in need of immediate attention. Drunkenness and selfishness perverted the Corinthians' celebration of the _Lord's_ Supper in which his very body and blood were present and received. St. Paul did not ask the spiritual leaders of the Christian church or the church itself to issue rules or to develop general admission policies. Rather he simply exhorts, "Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:28). The apostle attaches great importance to such self-examination, noting that failure to discern the Lord's body entailed eating and drinking judgment to oneself (11:29). He places the primary burden for such discernment upon individual self-examination and nowhere else. The role of church-body declarations of altar and pulpit fellowship also needs to be rightly understood in relationship to the corporate and individual nature of the Lord's Supper. When The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod and another church body declare that they are in altar and pulpit fellowship because they share a common confession of the Gospel and all its articles, that means, among other things, that the members of their congregations are welcomed to receive Holy Communion at all congregations of the two church bodies without further examination of whether they accept the corporate doctrinal confession of those congregations (remembering, of course, that _individual_ readiness to commune is a question that always needs to be addressed by every communicant, whether a member of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod or of another church body).[29] In practice, most of those communing at synodical congregations will be members of the host congregation, other synodical congregations, or of congregations belonging to a church body with which The Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod has formally and officially declared altar and pulpit fellowship. However, the church body's declaration of fellowship is to be understood more as recognizing eligibility for Holy Communion, after due personal preparation and pastoral care, rather than as a principle absolutely excluding all others belonging to church bodies where no such fellowship has been declared. The Synod has long recognized that conditions may exist or occur which call for responsible pastoral care in making exceptions to normal fellowship policies and practices. Beyond the exceptions officially recognized for wartime emergencies and campus situations, it sometimes happens that visitors who belong to congregations of other Christian denominations desire to commune at the altars of our synodical congregations. In addition to the ordinary questions of pastoral care that occur when guests are present, such questions as the following also need to be asked: Do such visitors share our confession of faith, perhaps in disagreement with the confession of their own congregation and church body? Do they understand that communing with our congregations gives witness to their acceptance of our doctrinal confession? Are such visitors under any pastoral or congregational discipline which should keep them from communing? Would their communing at our altars cause offense within our congregation on the grounds that such communing represents a weakening or compromise of the congregation's confession of faith? When the answers to such questions are satisfactory, guests should be welcomed. _Discussion Questions_ 1. In the present context, the rationale for the practice of close(d) communion is not well known nor is it widely understood. What Biblical directives concerning the responsible administration of the sacrament need special emphasis today? 2. What suggestions can be offered today for pastors and congregations in implementing the practice of close(d) communion? 3. In providing pastoral care to those desiring to commune as guests, how important is it to determine whether they are regularly communing elsewhere at the same time? 4. How does one guard against the impression that denominational identity is in and of itself a requirement for admission to the sacrament? 5. In dealing with an individual case of pastoral care which may be judged to be an "exceptional circumstance," what factors should be taken into account before admission is granted? _E. Non-Lutheran Speakers at Missouri Synod Events_ In keeping with our synodical principle that only pastors of our own church body or of church bodies in official altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod should be invited to preach from our pulpits, it goes without saying that congregations will ordinarily not invite others to preach. However, in very rare circumstances, there may be a reason for making an exception to this general principle. For example, pastors from a church body formerly in fellowship with the Synod or whose church body is currently in the process of seeking fellowship with the Synod, and who identify with the Synod's doctrinal position, may be invited to preach the sermon in an emergency or special situation. In all such cases, however, the circumstances must be carefully explained well in advance to the district president, who, in turn, must give his approval. Every effort should also be made to inform congregational members of the circumstances. In nonpreaching situations, or in events or activities other than congregational worship, it may on some occasions be edifying for the community to hear from non-Missouri Synod speakers. Our seminaries and colleges for many years have benefited from hearing and discussing the viewpoints of non-Missouri Synod speakers on a wide variety of theological topics. Rallies and convocations that focus on specialized areas of activity may likewise invite non-LCMS speakers to address such events, as long as their participation is not understood as preaching and does not convey a negative witness to the truth of God's Word. Similar principles should be followed when considering congregational invitations to special congregational events. If there is doubt about the witness value of inviting a given speaker, the district president should be invited to give his approval. _Discussion Questions_ 1. What are the differences, if any, between non-LCMS speakers being granted permission to speak at LCMS events and LCMS speakers accepting invitations to speak in non-LCMS events? 2. Some in the Synod have suggested over the years the separation of _altar fellowship from_ pulpit fellowship. The Synod has consistently rejected such overtures. To the best of your knowledge, why has this been the case? _F. Consultation in Beginning New Ministries_ In our world of more than 5 billion people, three out of four persons do not know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. In that situation, it is ordinarily not only unwise and unprofitable, but detrimental to the church's God-given mission elaborated in Part I, to establish new congregations or ministries that are in direct competition or conflict with those of neighboring congregations. However, this general principle cannot be made into an absolute law, for situations exist from time to time u here our witness to the truth or unusual opportunities suggest that we proceed even though other Christian groups are working nearby. God may open doors to unique opportunities to bear witness to his Gospel (cf. Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3). The Synod is therefore committed to consulting with other Christian church groups before beginning new ministries (including foreign mission work), and it asks for a similar courtesy from other Christian bodies. _Discussion Questions_ 1. In what areas is special guidance needed for members of the Synod as they seek to cooperate with other Christians in the establishment of new congregations or ministries at the local level? 2. What kind of cooperative endeavors work well? Poorly? Why? _G. Doctrinal Discussions or Dialogues with Other Christians and with Non-Christians_ The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod has long been characterized by a willingness to discuss theological differences and, ecclesiastical practices with anyone who will allow us to do so without compromise. Such conversations help to remove caricatures, promote a better understanding, and provide an opportunity to resolve historic differences under the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Since 1965, the Synod has been an official participant in dialogues with Roman Catholics and subsequently with most other major confessional families within Christendom. The primary responsibility for such church-body level discussions rests with the Synod and its officials. Similar conversations are frequently helpful at district and regional levels as well. For the sake of good order, all such discussions should have the prior approval of the appropriate synodical officials. Likewise, conversations at the local or community level may also be very helpful and should be encouraged. Again, prior consultation regarding such conversations should be carried out with the respective district official, usually the district president. It should be emphasized that, at all levels of the Synod, every effort should be made to help our members understand the nature and purposes of such discussions. Properly understood, such conversations represent a strong confessional Lutheranism at its best and give us many opportunities to bear witness to the Gospel of our Lord. _Discussion Questions_ 1. Examine the "Guidelines for LCMS Participation in Ecumenical Dialogues" adopted by the CTCR in 1975 and included in the appendix to this study instrument (attached as Appendix B). Discuss the rationale given for the Synod's participation in such dialogues. 2. Under what conditions would it be appropriate for the members of the Synod to participate in ecumenical discussions? Inappropriate? _________________________________________________ APPENDIX A _CASE STUDY I_ Pastor Schmidt, a longtime leader in District and Synod, and also prominent in interreligious and civic affairs in the community in which his LCMS congregation is located, is invited to preach at a "Service of Prayer for Christian Unity." The service is to be held on a Sunday afternoon in the local Catholic cathedral because of the large number of people expected to attend. Clergy from the neighboring Catholic and Protestant congregations will participate by leading various portions of the service, e.g., invocation, Scripture readings, prayers, the Apostles' Creed, and benediction. Holy Communion will not be celebrated. Participating clergy are encouraged to wear their regular vestments for Sunday worship. Pastor Schmidt is informed that this event is to be publicized as a community worship service, led by clergy representatives of church bodies not in communion with each other because of continuing doctrinal disagreements, for the purpose of praying for greater Christian unity among them. Pastor Schmidt, upon the reception of this invitation, discusses it with his congregation. He begins by referring them to Article VI of the Synod's Constitution, which lists as one of the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod the "renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as serving congregations of mixed confession as such, by ministers of the church" and "taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession." He also reminds them of the Synod's traditional practice not to participate in such joint public worship services. At the same time he tells his congregation that, as the preacher at this service, he would have the opportunity and freedom to proclaim the pure Gospel. He tells them that if he accepts this invitation, he intends to state clearly in his sermon that there are important doctrinal disagreements between the participating denominations and to spell out the necessity of their attaining agreement in the confession of the Christian faith before entering into an ongoing communion with one another. He states that in this way he would be able to bear witness to the Scriptural teaching that all Christians are part of the Holy Christian Church and that we Lutherans recognize the members of other Trinitarian denominations as brothers and sisters in Christ. He concludes by asking them if they would consider his acceptance of this invitation improper and contrary to Scripture. The majority of the members of the congregation are pleased that their pastor has received this invitation. They encourage him to accept it as a way of helping to overcome the prevalent view in the community that Lutherans are "outsiders" or a sect like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They tell him that a failure to accept this invitation would be widely perceived by the community as a statement that the Lutheran Church does not consider the other churches to be Christian. And they assure him that his participation should not be regarded as unionistic and therefore at odds with Synod's Constitution since it would not present a witness of unity where doctrinal disagreements continue to exist. Several members of the congregation, however, strongly oppose their pastor's participation in this "joint public worship service." They tell him his acceptance of this invitation would be a direct violation of the Constitution of the LCMS and an embarrassment to other LCMS pastors and congregations in the community who have declined such invitations in the past. Even more important, they say, is the fact that the Scriptures tell us to mark those who teach contrary to what God's Word teaches and to avoid them. Since we Lutherans believe, they say, that the churches to be represented in this service do precisely this, it is therefore contrary to God's will to conduct joint worship services with them and thereby give the impression that all of us are agreed on all those teachings that really count. Pastor Schmidt, undecided as to what he should do in this situation, comes to you for advice and counsel. What will you say to him? What do you think he should do? Why? Would it make any difference if the participants in the service were Lutheran churches not in church fellowship with the LCMS? _CASE STUDY 2_ Don Johnson, only a nominal Christian prior to his marriage five years ago into a staunch LCMS family, has become a very active member of a Missouri Synod congregation. Two years ago he was elected chairman of his congregation's Evangelism Committee, and under his leadership the congregation has for the first time in its existence begun to make an impact in the community. Just recently the Billy Graham organization announced that it would be conducting a week-long evangelistic crusade in the metropolitan area in a few months. Mr. Johnson, along with selected leaders in all of the "evangelical" churches in the community, has been contacted by the organizers of the crusade to take part in it. In addition to receiving invitations to serve on the multidenominational planning committee for the crusade, Johnson is also asked to serve as a leader of one of the information groups scheduled to be held for those making a decision for Christ each evening. He invited to attend a prayer breakfast for all the local church leaders to "kick-off" the planning of the crusade, at which time he will have an opportunity to present a personal testimony of how Christ has changed his life and offer on e of the prayers. Excited about the possibility this crusade offers him and his congregation for witnessing to Christ in his community, Mr. Johnson is enthusiastic about the upcoming crusade and ready to accept the appointment to serve on the planning committee. But he is surprised when his wife asks him if he has cleared his participation in the crusade with his pastor, since she has always been taught that the Missouri Synod was opposed to working with other denominations in such endeavors. Johnson tells his wife that he believes that working together with other Christians in witnessing to Christ should take precedence over denominational emphases or differences in doctrine in view of the urgency of Christ's mission. Moreover, he informs her that his letter of invitation expressly states that all participants in the crusade must agree to talk only about the central Gospel message of the forgiveness of sins through the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, and to avoid such divisive issues among evangelicals as infant baptism, the Lord's Supper, the inerrancy of Scripture, and the millennium. Nevertheless, Mr. Johnson is concerned about what his wife has told him. He therefore decides to visit with his pastor and see what he has to say about his participation in this crusade. You are his pastor. What do you say to him? _CASE STUDY 3_ Beth Beltz, the daughter of the chairman of an LCMS congregation, is engaged to be married to Stanley Lockwood, the son of the pastor of the neighboring Episcopal Church. Shortly after announcing their engagement, the couple pays a visit to Beth's pastor, tells him about their plans, and asks him to conduct their wedding ceremony. But they also inform him that they have decided to ask Stanley's father to read the Scripture lessons during the service. Upon hearing of their plans, the pastor congratulates them and expresses his pleasure upon being asked to perform the marriage ceremony. But he also informs them very tactfully that it is contrary to the position of the LCMS for its pastors to conduct joint wedding ceremonies with pastors of congregations not in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Missouri Synod. He suggests, therefore, that Pastor Lockwood be asked to lead the guests in a brief prayer at the beginning of the wedding banquet to be held immediately following the marriage service. Much to the pastor's disappointment, the bride-to-be is not at all satisfied with this arrangement. She tells him that she is well aware of the position of the LCMS on joint public worship services, that she has discussed this matter with her father, and that she has even read 1977 Resolution 3-25 "To Speak Regarding Lutheran-Non-Lutheran Weddings." She points out that this resolution of the Synod quotes from a statement adopted by the Council of Presidents that said that ''_participation_ in ecumenical ceremonies should not be as co-officiant, worship leader, or celebrant, but should be arranged in such a way that it is not an official part of the worship service nor a solemnizing or celebrating of the marriage. " She goes on to say that, while she is somewhat confused about the practice of the LCMS in this area, she feels that it allows for some sort of participation in the actual church service. It was for this reason, she explains, that they had not requested her fiancˇe's father to preach the sermon or perform the marriage itself. She states that their request was consistent with the practice of the Synod, since her congregation regularly permitted non-Lutherans to sing solos during worship services, allowed a member of the Gideons to address the congregation during a public worship service each year, and had on one or two occasions even permitted a chancel drama group, whose cast contained non-Lutherans, to present the sermon during Sunday morning worship. She concludes by asking the pastor to explain why this request to have her future husband's father, who is a pastor of a Christian church, read from the Bible during their wedding service was contrary to the practice of the LCMS while these other forms of participation by non-Lutherans in public worship were not. The pastor finally agrees to reconsider their request and tells them that he will meet with them again in one week. He comes to you, his Circuit Counselor, for advice. What do you say to him? _APPENDIX B_ _Guidelines for LCMS Participation In Ecumenical Dialogs_ The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod carries out ecumenical studies and participates in dialogs with other denominations for the purpose of identifying areas of agreement and of disagreement and for the sake of giving a Lutheran witness to the truth as it is revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the Lutheran Symbols. The President of the Synod is the chief ecumenical officer of the Synod. He is to "represent the Synod in official contacts with other churches and Synods" (_Handbook_, 2.27g). The CTCR is to assist the President at his request in discharging his constitutional responsibilities, specifically "in dealing with other church bodies; in initiating and pursuing fellowship discussions with other church bodies" (_Handbook_, 2.109b 2 bb, cc). Consonant with the above, the CTCR at the request of the President of the Synod suggests to him the following guidelines for participation in interchurch dialogs: 1. The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod representatives in ecumenical dialogs shall be appointed by the President of the Synod. The CTCR is prepared to assist the President, at his request, in selecting LCMS representatives and suggests that consideration be given to the appointing of at least one CTCR member to each dialog team. 2. The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod representatives in ecumenical dialogs shall be appointed after the convention of the Synod for renewable terms of two years. 3. The main value of interconfessional dialogs is found in the joint study of the Word of God on theological issues. Ordinarily the Synod does not consider "consensus statements" essential to the purposes of interconfessional dialog. If "consensus statements" are contemplated, LCMS representatives shall seek the advice of the President of the Synod in consultation with the CTCR. 4. Each dialog team of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod shall report in writing to the President of the Synod after each dialog meeting and shall submit a comprehensive report of its activities during the biennium to the President of the Synod and to the CTCR for review and report to the convention of the Synod. Adopted by the CTCR, January 1975 _APPENDIX C_ _SELK GUIDELINES_ 1. Mixed marriages bring with them a number of serious difficulties for pastoral care as well as for the worship and sacramental life and the confessional consciousness of the respective church members, and especially for the confessional education of the church of such marriages. Like the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church has always called careful attention to the dangers and problems arising from mixed marriages. Therefore, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as a matter of principle, cannot advocate confessionally mixed marriages since thereby the deepest fellowship of the marriage partners in their Christian faith is jeopardized or even rendered impossible. At an early stage, pastors should call attention to the fact that it is important for Christians to hold the same faith as their spouses and to practice that faith jointly in a single congregation. However, the different faiths of the marriage couple do not prevent them from having a church wedding in our church. 2. If a couple of different faiths desires to be married in our church, pastors should persistently advocate using the Evangelical Lutheran wedding ceremony and preferably without the participation of a minister of another faith. Attention may be called to the fact that actually there is no such thing as an "ecumenical wedding ceremony." In any case, the couple must decide whether it wants to be married in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Evangelical Lutheran Church. As it does so, the couple should be aware of the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran wedding ceremony does not in any sense agree with the canonical form prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church, even when a Roman Catholic priest participates in the ceremony. The only alternative to an Evangelical Lutheran wedding, namely, to let the wedding be performed in a Roman Catholic Church and by a Roman Catholic priest, would subject a decisive step in life to the proclamation and blessing of a church, which, in essential dogmatic declarations of doctrine, departs from Holy Scripture and the scripturally grounded confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In this whole problem area, a clear understanding ought to be achieved with the bridal couple in premarital consultations. 3. Experience, nevertheless, teaches that couples of different faiths not infrequently insist on a so-called ecumenical wedding ceremony. In such cases, the reasons advanced for it may merit consideration and should be respected out of pastoral concern. Thus, for example, the person of a different faith may have such close ties with his church that he would not want to forego having a minister of his faith participate in the wedding ceremony. Also, the confessional loyalties of both families frequently play an important role. Precisely at this point, the wedding ceremony in a mixed marriage which involves the participation of the minister of the other faith can contribute to the maintenance of family peace and the strengthening of respect for the doctrinal position of the other person. When, in spite of intensive discussions, the desire for such a jointly conducted wedding ceremony persists, the pastors of our church should not be prevented from conducting an Evangelical Lutheran marriage ceremony in which a minister of the Roman Catholic Church or of the Evangelical State Church also participates. However, it must always be maintained that in such a case we are dealing with a pastoral solution, made on the basis of compassion, to an emergency situation. Here every pastor must decide for himself on the basis of his conscience that is bound by the Word of God, as well as his pastoral responsibilities. This includes the understanding that the members of our church have no right to demand the privilege of a jointly conducted church wedding ceremony. 4. Ecclesiastically, such a jointly conducted church wedding ceremony for a couple of different faiths can only be justified when it is clear that it does not entail any pulpit or altar fellowship. Therefore, the minister of the other confession can jointly participate only in limited ways, namely, through Scripture readings, prayers, and benediction. The wedding sermon should be preached by the Evangelical Lutheran pastor, who should also perform the actual rite of marriage. To be sure, even in such a limited participation by a minister of another confession, one cannot lose sight of the fact that this entails a form of church fellowship, although it is clearly below the level of pulpit and altar fellowship. Therefore, in reaching a decision concerning such a jointly conducted wedding ceremony, attention must be paid to the position and tradition of the congregations, in addition to the theologically bound conscience of the officiating pastor. The pastor should do everything possible to avoid causing confusion and offense. An understanding with the elders should be reached at an early date. The proper superintendent should also be consulted. Finally, we should also make sure that the participating minister of the other confession stands committed to the creeds of the ancient church and joins us in confessing the Triune God as well as the incarnation and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Together with us he must also regard marriage as a divine institution and stand for its indissolubility and sanctity, as well as for the Christian family. 5. More serious problems are posed by the joint participation of pastors in the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church in a Roman Catholic wedding ceremony. In that case, the Lutheran pastor participates in a worship service which at least in part is based upon the unscriptural doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. We would, therefore, like to strenuously advise against such joint participation. To be sure, there are some known cases, particularly in predominantly Catholic areas, where members of our church have pleaded with their pastor not to leave them alone in their wedding ceremony performed in a Roman Catholic Church. In such cases, it has been possible now and again for the Evangelical Lutheran pastor to preach the wedding sermon and thereby to bring a clear, Biblical witness to the gospel and the divine institution of marriage. The joint participation of an Evangelical Lutheran minister in a Roman Catholic wedding ceremony cannot even be considered in a case where a nuptial mass is held, since thereby the question of altar fellowship is involved. In the case of participating in a Protestant State Church wedding ceremony, its prevailing theological pluralism requires that particular attention be paid to the acceptance of the ecumenical creeds and the understanding of marriage. Any participation with female pastors of the State Church is to be absolutely avoided. _LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA GUIDELINES_ 1. The pastor's action, when invited to take part in a marriage service conducted by a minister of another denomination, or when requested to permit a minister of another denomination to take part in a marriage service conducted by him will be guided by the theses on joint prayer and worship Doctrinal Statement and Theological Opinions of the Lutheran Church of Australia, A3, A4). 2. In accordance with these principles, participation in an official capacity in services conducted by churches not in altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCA, as well as inviting clergy of such churches to take part in services conducted by Lutheran Pastors will be seen as exceptions, and should be agreed to only after consultation with the president of the District of which the pastor is a member. 3.When a pastor is invited to take part in a non-Lutheran marriage service, it may be appropriate for him to read the Word of God, to preach the Gospel at such a service, and to pronounce a blessing on the couple, provided that the liturgy and prayers of the service do not contain doctrinal aberrations. 4. For confessional reasons, a Lutheran pastor will not invite a minister of another church, which is not in altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCA, to preach at a marriage service conducted by him. However, such a guest minister may be invited to read from the Word of God, and to give a blessing or greeting. _RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE_ 1. Which of the following statements most nearly characterizes the response of your group to the Commission's "Inter-Christian Relationships" study instrument? (Circle the most appropriate response and explain your choice.) a. The guidance for inter-Christian relationships provided in this document is not faithful to all that the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions teach and, while reflecting an awareness of the contemporary situation in which the church finds itself, _will nevertheless encourage unionistic activity_. _Comments_: b. The guidance for inter-Christian relationships provided in this document, while faithful to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions as far as it goes, does not fully reflect an awareness of the contemporary situations in which the church finds itself and _will therefore encourage divisive, separatistic activity_. _Comments: c. The guidance for inter-Christian relationships provided in this document is faithful to what the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions teach, reflects an awareness of the contemporary situation in which the church finds itself and _will encourage the proper application of Law and Gospel in inter-Christian relationships_. _Comments_: 2. As you reflect on your discussion of the Commission's study instrument, what did you find to be most helpful in providing guidance for inter-Christian relationships today? Least helpful? 3. As the Commission proceeds to prepare a final version of the "Guidelines for Inter-Christian Relationships" requested by the Synod, what specific suggestions would you offer to the Commission? Please return this questionnaire by _January 15, 1992_ to Commission on Theology and Church Relations The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod 1333 South Kirkwood Road St. Louis, Missouri 63122-7295 ______________________________________________________________________ ENDNOTES AND CITATIONS [1] Resolution 3-02A, 1977 _Convention Proceedings_125-26. [2] See 1979 _Convention Workbook_, 72-78, for a complete report on the "Formula for Concord" conferences. [3] Resolution 3-03 1979 _Convention Proceedings_, 117-19; cf. "Bible study on Fellowship," prepared by the CTCR in 1979. [4] "The Nature and Implications of the Concept of Fellowship," A Report of the CTCR, 1981, 13-16. [5] _Ibid._, 42. [6] _Ibid._, 43. [7] Resolution 3-01, 1981 _Convention Proceedings_, 156. [8] 1986 _Convention Workbook_, 105-108. [9] Resolution 3-13A, 1986 _Convention Proceedings_, 145. [10] Particular attention should be called to the first part of the Commission's 1965 report on _Theology of Fellowship_. This section, prepared by four seminary professors in the late 1950s, emphasizes that God created the fellowship, that God bestows the blessings of fellowship in creating faith, and that in bestowing this fellowship God claims it for the whole life of man (see 1-12). [11] The key passages involved in this emphasis are Matt. 7:15 16; Gal. 1:6-9; Acts 19:8-10, 2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10; 1 Cor. 6:14-18. They are given careful exegesis and comment in _Theology of Fellowship_, 23-26. In a summary statement, this document notes that these passages, like all of Scripture, were written for our learning and therefore are properly applied when we avoid people who attack the Gospel and the faith of Christians. The summary statement concludes by stating that the church will be misusing these passages if it employs them "to hinder the church's ongoing attempts to heal the schisms in the church and to foster the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (26). [12] See Ralph Bohlmann, "The Celebration of Concord," in _Theologians' Convocation: Formula for Concord_, published by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1977, 56-59, 85-89. This essay uses the terms _truth, unity_, and _love_ as a shorthand way of summarizing three Biblical themes which are crucial for examining confessional ecumenical principles and their implications for us today. The Commission has found this a helpful way to bring together what the Scriptures teach concerning relationships between and among Christians. [13] Resolution 3-02, 1983 _Convention Proceedings_, 153. [14] Article VI of the Constitution of the Synod gives the following examples of unionism and syncretism: a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church, b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession; c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities. [15] 1989 _Handbook_, 10. [16] _Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod_, 1932, 13. [17] 1989 _Handbook_, 10. [18] See, for example, Francis Pieper, _Christian Dogmatics_ (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 1:6, 24, 26f., 29, 30, _et passim_. [19] "Statement of Agreement Between The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod and the National Lutheran Council," 1951. [20] Resolution 2-07A 1975 _Convention Proceedings_, 88-89. [21]. Resolution 3-01, 1981 _Convention Proceedings_, 154-55. [22] See Constitution, Article VI; 1965 Res. 2-16; 1967 Res. 2-18 and 2-19; and 1969 Res. 3-18. [23] In 1983 the Council of Presidents endorsed for study and counsel in the Synod a series of principles presented in a paper prepared by President Bohlmann applying the Synod's position on joint worship to the question of participation in certain joint public. events held with other Christians (printed in the May 2, 1983, issue of _The Reporter_ under the title "The Missouri Synod and Joint Worship"). The Commission has taken these principles into account in presenting the considerations given here. [24] Resolution 3-25, 1977 _Convention Proceedings_, 136. [25] Ibid. [26] In September 1982 the Bishop of the Synod's sister church, the Independent Evangelical Lutheran Church (SELK) of Germany, distributed to the pastors of SELK a number of guidelines for "Acting Pastorally in Connection with Wedding Ceremonies Involving Mixed Marriages." One of these guidelines; states that "when in spite of intensive discussions, the desire for a jointly conducted wedding ceremony persists, the pastors of our church should not be prevented from conducting an Evangelical Lutheran marriage ceremony in which a minister of the Roman Catholic Church or of the Evangelical State Church also participates." It is also noted, however, that in such a case we are dealing with a pastoral solution, made on the basis of compassion, to an emergency situation," and that "every pastor must decide for himself on the basis of his conscience what is best in such cases. Also implicit is the understanding "that the members of our church have no right to demand the privilege of a jointly conducted wedding ceremony." Several exceptions to the above statement are also noted, such as participating in a ceremony involving a Roman Catholic mass or "any participation with female pastors of the State Church." Attention might also be called to "Guidelines for Inter-Christian Marriages" prepared in 1988 by the Commission on Theology and Inter-Church Relations of the Lutheran Church of Australia. These guidelines allow for the possibility of participation in jointly conducted wedding ceremonies, under the guidance of the LCA's theses on joint prayer and worship. Such cases are seen by the LCA as "exceptions," which "should be agreed to only after consultation with the president of the District of which the pastor is a member." Guideline 3 states that "when a pastor is invited to take part in a non-Lutheran marriage service, it may be appropriate for him to read the Word of God. to preach the Gospel at such a service, and to pronounce a blessing on the couple, provided that the liturgy and prayers of the service do not contain doctrinal aberrations." For the full text of both statements, see Appendix C. [27] Nature and Implications of the Concept of Fellowship," 46. [28] Werner Elert, _Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries_ (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), 75-83. See Resolution 2-19, 1967 _Convention Proceedings_, 93; Resolution 3-08, 1986 _Convention Proceedings_, 143, and 1983 report of the CTCR on "Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper," 19-23. [29] In the Large Catechism, Martin Luther wrote concerning the words by which Christ instituted the sacrament: "So everyone who wishes to be a Christian and go to the sacrament should be familiar with them. For we do not intend to admit to the sacrament and administer it to those who do not know what they seek or why they come" (LC V,2). ______________________________________________________________ This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by Mark A. French and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: bob_smith@ctsfw.edu Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (219) 452-2148 Fax: (219) 452-2126 ______________________________________________________________