THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod 1962 Part Three _SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF FELLOWSHIP_ As stated in the Preamble, the document, THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, grew out of studies initiated by a resolution of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod at the St. Paul convention in 1956 requesting a restudy of the question of "fellowship, prayer fellowship, and unionism."[1] The committee appointed to make this study searched the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, with great care to glean all passages which have a bearing on fellowship. Its findings are embodied in the THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part I. The committee found that "Fellowship, both between the believer and his God and between the believer and his fellow believer, looms large in the Holy Scripture in both Testaments."[2] The findings in Part I may be summed up briefly as follows: God created man for fellowship both with Himself and with his fellowmen. Man destroyed this fellowship by the fall into sin, by which he became an enemy of God and brought strife and emnity into the human family. However, God in His great mercy in Christ redeemed man from sin in order that He might restore him to fellowship with Himself and with his fellowmen in the Christian church. The Scripture, particularly the New Testament, abounds in passages which extol this fellowship.[3] Therefore Christians should consider fellowship, also church fellowship, the normal thing in their relations with one another. They should desire such fellowship, and should constantly be concerned to extend the blessings of this fellowship to others. However, the New Testament also contains a number of passages wh THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod 1962 Part Three _SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF FELLOWSHIP_ As stated in the Preamble, the document, THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, grew out of studies initiated by a resolution of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod at the St. Paul convention in 1956 requesting a restudy of the question of "fellowship, prayer fellowship, and unionism."[1] The committee appointed to make this study searched the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, with great care to glean all passages which have a bearing on fellowship. Its findings are embodied in the THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part I. The committee found that "Fellowship, both between the believer and his God and between the believer and his fellow believer, looms large in the Holy Scripture in both Testaments."[2] The findings in Part I may be summed up briefly as follows: God created man for fellowship both with Himself and with his fellowmen. Man destroyed this fellowship by the fall into sin, by which he became an enemy of God and brought strife and emnity into the human family. However, God in His great mercy in Christ redeemed man from sin in order that He might restore him to fellowship with Himself and with his fellowmen in the Christian church. The Scripture, particularly the New Testament, abounds in passages which extol this fellowship.[3] Therefore Christians should consider fellowship, also church fellowship, the normal thing in their relations with one another. They should desire such fellowship, and should constantly be concerned to extend the blessings of this fellowship to others. However, the New Testament also contains a number of passages which warn against persons, teachings, and actions which are injurious to Christian fellowship, and commands Christians to avoid such persons, teachings, and actions. The committee appointed to restudy the question of "fellowship, prayer fellowship and unionism" saw as one of its tasks to study with great care the passages which command separation from or avoidance of certain persons in the interest of fellowship. Part III of THEOEOGY OF FELEOWSHIP addresses itself to a study of the Scripture passages which command separation and seeks to give answers to questions concerning "fellowship, prayer fellowship, and unionism." A. _AN EXAMINATION OF THE PASSAGES WHICH COMMAND SEPARATION_ The passages of Scripture which command Christians to separate themselves from certain persons, teachings, and practices are in particular the following: Matt. 7:15, 16; Gal. 1:6-9; Acts 19:8-10; 2 John 9-11; Rom. 16:17, 18; Titus 3:10; 2 Cor. 6:14-18. These passages do not appear to have been used by Luther and his co- workers in the manner in which they have often been used in our time: to forbid all work and worship with men with whom they are not wholly in accord doctrinally; nor are they so used in the Lutheran Confessions. John Gerhard, the great orthodox Lutheran dogmatician, whose celebrated _Loci Theologici_ was first issued in 1620, makes no such use of these passages. We find him quoting Matt. 7:15; Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:9; 1 John 4:1; and 2 John 10 to show that the church must guard against false teachers, and that laymen are capable of judging doctrines.[4] Beyond this he draws no deductions from these passages. According to the evidence from the history of the Lutheran Church these passages appear to have come into prominence, and to have been used much as they have been used in the history of The Lutheran Church -Missouri Synod, about the time of the Colloquy of Thorn in Poland in 1645, when unsuccessful doctrinal discussions were conducted among Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed.[5] It is therefore necessary that we examine, even if briefly, the chief of the passages which have since the time of the Colloquy of Thorn been quoted by some against all joint prayer with Christians of other confessions, no matter what the occasion. In the following we offer a brief examination of a number of these passages in context. _Matt. 7:15, 16_ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? In this passage Jesus warns His followers to beware of false prophets. For a correct understanding of this passage it is necessary to know what a _false prophet_ is. This in turn calls for a Biblical understanding of what a _prophet_ is. According to Scripture not every teacher of religion, also not every faithful teacher of the Christian doctrine, is a prophet. A prophet is "one who speaks for God or a deity: a divinely inspired revealer, interpreter, or spokesman."[6] This definition, taken from a modern dictionary, harmonizes closely with definitions of prophet and prophecy in standard lexica of the New Testament.7 As the term prophet in Scripture seems not to be used of teachers in general, but of divinely commissioned teachers into whose mouth God has put His Word and commanded them to proclaim it, so also the false prophet is not every teacher who either from ignorance or from malice proclaims error. Rather the false prophet (Greek: _pseudoprophetes_) is a pseudo, a fake, who claims to be a divinely commissioned spokesman for God when in fact God has not sent him.[8] That the false prophets against whom our Lord warns in Matt. 7:15ff. are thought of, not merely as purveyors of lies, but as men who falsely claim to be prophets of God, is indicated also by verses 22, 23, which are part of the warning against false prophets. Here these people are quoted as saying, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" As genuine prophecy both in the Old and in the New Testament was often accompanied by genuine miracles, so false prophets have again and again tried to bolster their claim to be prophets by purported miracles (Deut. 13:1, 2; Rev. 16:13,14). According to the strict Biblical usage of the term, therefore, not every erring teacher should at once be called a false prophet, much less erring Christians or whole churches. This is in no wise to say that there are not real false prophets in the world today. There have been such at all times. There are such today, both pretending to be inspired spokesmen for God, and claiming to perform miracles. Nor is this to say that the church dare ever relax her vigilance against every error in doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 4; Acts 20: 28-30). But the church ought not to use this passage loosely, as though all erring Christians and perhaps whole erring churches were to be treated as false prophets, who are wolves in sheep's clothing. This would be a serious error against the doctrine of the church, because also _erring_ Christians are _Christians_, and members of the body of Christ. _Gal. 1:6-9_ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal. 1:6-9 was written against well-known heretical teachers of apostolic times, the so-called Judaizers, who taught that Christians had to be circumcised and to keep the ceremonial law of Moses, or they could not be saved. (Cf. Acts 15:1.) St. Paul very properly recognized this as destroying the Gospel itself, and told those who accepted this teaching, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace." (Cf. Gal.5:4.) This passage must be applied against all teachers who, after the manner of the Judaizers, teach Christians to build their hope of salvation on the works of the Law. It is a constant warning to teachers and hearers alike against moralism, synergism, and the confusion of Law and Gospel. However, Gal. 1:6-9 must not be applied indiscriminately to every erring Christian or teacher, much less to whole churches in which the Gospel is preached, even though this preaching may be accompanied by doctrinal errors. It deals with teachers who overthrew the Gospel, the very foundation of the church's faith. Therefore St. Paul pronounces a curse upon them, a thing which would be unthinkable, if he were dealing with erring Christians. _Acts 19:8-10_ And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God But when divers were hardened, and believed not but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. This passage shows how St. Paul dealt with a situation when, in a synagogue in Ephesus, where he had preached the Gospel and many had been converted, some "were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way [the Christian faith is meant] before the multitude." Realizing that here he was dealing, not with weak or erring Christians, who needed to be taught, but with hardened enemies of the Christian faith, Paul "departed from them, and separated the disciples." Evidently he found a different place for his preaching, for after this he "disputed daily in the school of one Tyrannus." _2 John 7-11_ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. This passage speaks of traveling teachers who came to the homes of Christians, making propaganda for their teachings or seeking free meals and lodging or both. These teachers are called "deceivers" and "antichrist," v. 7. Their error is that they "confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." This kind of false teacher is well known from the first Epistle of John and from extra-Biblical literature. The error is that of Docetism, which held that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, but that His human nature was not real. According to these teachers, the Son of God had not really come into the flesh. This was not an error which built on the foundation "wood, hay, stubble" (1 Cor. 3:12), but which overthrew the very foundation of the Christian faith. Therefore the apostle also says concerning such a teacher, "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." This passage is properly applied to all who seek to overthrow the foundation of the Christian faith, particularly those who deny the incarnation of the Son of God in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It strikes with full force all those who would make Jesus Christ something less than "true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary." _Rom. 16:17, 18_ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. This passage, perhaps more than any other, has figured prominently in past discussions of what has come to be called unionism. A number of widely divergent interpretations of the passage have been proposed. A careful examination of this passage in its context reveals that it occurs in a chapter aimed by the apostle at _strengthening_ the fellowship not only in the congregation at Rome, but between the Roman church and other Christian churches as well. Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea is commended to the church at Rome, v. 1; Aquila and Priscilla, and a host of others who were known to Paul, were to be greeted. There are in all 14 requests by the apostle to greet certain persons with whom he was acquainted, and who were then in Rome, though it appears that it had never been Paul's own good fortune to visit this great city (cf. 1:10). After the greetings comes the request that the Christians in Rome express their fellowship with one another with an holy kiss, v. 16. This is followed by the assurance: "The churches of Christ salute you." Into this context of fellowship in the church in Rome and with the Christian churches everywhere, a fellowship cemented by greetings and sealed with the holy kiss, comes the warning: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them; For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." Paul does not name these disturbers of the peace and fellowship of the church, and it is of little use for Christians today to try to say with certainty who they were. The following facts, however, are clear from his words: 1. Christians must be on their guard against those who seek to disrupt their fellowship in Christ; 2. The men whom Paul here commands his readers to mark and avoid are not the victims of past schisms and divisions. Rather, they _cause_ (Greek: _tous. . .poiountas_; RSV: those who create dissensions, etc.) divisions and offenses. Paul tries to cement the church together in love and fellowship in Christ; these men try to divide it. 3. They make these divisions and offenses "contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned." This doctrine is the Gospel, which all Christians have learned, and which alone brings the Christian church into being and preserves it.[9] 4. Because these trouble-makers are not erring Christians, who need to be taught, but people who attack the church's very foundation, namely, the Gospel, the apostle commands the Christians in Rome to avoid them, and judges: "They that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." A careful study of Romans 16:17, 18 underscores the importance of observing the distinction between erring Christians, who must be instructed, and heretics, who attack the foundation of the church, as this distinction was set forth in THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part II, from writings of St. Augustine, of Luther, and from the Preface to _The Book of Concord._ _Titus 3:10, 11_ A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. The term rendered "heretick" by the King James Version is translated in the RSV as "a man that is factious," that is, a man who creates factions or divisions. This rendering is in accord with the original meaning of the term. Whether he makes factions by means of false doctrine, as is usually the case, or whether he divides the church by other means, does not alter the church's duty with respect to him. A man who seeks to divide the church is to be admonished once or twice, and then avoided. For it is evident that, if the church successfully avoids a man who would divide it, he cannot accomplish his aim. The heretic or factious man, who will not yield to admonition, is judged to be a self-condemned man. On this passage Luther says: Heretics do not merely err, but refuse to be instructed defend their error as being right, and fight against the truth, which they know, and against their own conscience. Concerning such St. Paul says (Titus 3:11, 12): You are to avoid a heretic, when he has been admonished once or twice, and you are to know that such a man is perverted, and sins _a u t o c a t o c r i t o s_, that is, intentionally, and against better knowledge, and wants to remain in his errors. It should be obvious that Titus 3:10 should be applied, not to erring Christians, who can be corrected, but to stubborn errorists who refuse to be instructed. _II Cor. 6:14-18_ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship bath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion bath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. In this passage, addressed to the Christians who lived in the heathen environment of Corinth, where both the Christian faith and Christian morality were constantly in danger, Paul warns, "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." It is clear that the people against whom the apostle warns are not erring Christians, but the unbelievers by whom they were surrounded. It is not crystal clear precisely what the apostle meant by "being unequally yoked together." The Greek word, "_heterozygountes_," is found only here in the New Testament, and only once in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, where it is used to translate the word rendered in the King James Version as "gender with a diverse kind" (Lev. 19:19). It has often, and with reason, been understood as forbidding Christians to marry unbelievers.[11] In the Lutheran Church the passage has been referred in a wider sense to fellowship. At the time of the Reformation Luther used it to warn against having anything to do with the Roman Catholic mass, which he considered idolatrous. The passage is applied a number of times against the Roman Catholic Church in the Lutheran Confessions.[l2] Our Confessions do not use the passage against the Reformed, nor against erring Lutherans. Later the passage was used by Lutherans against Reformed teachers, whom they considered stubborn heretics. Finally, in the history of the Lutheran Church in this country, some Lutherans, also in our own Synod, used the passage to forbid fellowship with other Lutherans who were considered to be in error. It is evident that those who use the passage in this way have gone beyond the clear words of the text, which forbids being "unequally yoked together with _unbelievers_." _Summary Statement_ Concerning all these passages it is clear that they were originally spoken or written for specific situations and apply first of all to these specific situations. It is, however, equally true that, like all Scripture these passages too were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4), and the church must, until the end of time, study also these passages and draw from them light and instruction for her life in fellowship. She will use them properly when she is taught by them to avoid men who, either by false teaching or separatistic, schismatic, factious activities attack the Gospel and the faith of Christians. She will be misusing these passages if she uses 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. B. _UNIONISM AND SEPARATISM_ In the discussions of the question of church fellowship among Lutherans two terms are frequently used, _unionism_ and _separatism_. Neither word has been defined either uniformly or in a manner acceptable to all. This lack of clearcut definitions has been a serious hindrance to profitable discussions and mutual understanding. In the following we attempt to clarify these two concepts in a manner that is consonant with the teachings of Scripture and of the Lutheran Confessions. 1. _Unionism_ The terms _unionism_ and _unionist_ as ecclesiastical terms came into use in connection with the efforts of King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia to effect a union of the Lutheran and of the Reformed churches in his realm in 1817, the tercentenary of theen treated exegetically above, and adds: In the light of these texts all joint ecclesiastical efforts for religious work (missionary, educational, etc.) and particularly joint worship and mixed (promiscuous) prayer among those who profess the truth and those why deny any part of it, is sinful unionism.[l6] er«L2@many, to characterize the union of Reformed and Lutherans without removal of the doctrinal differences which divided them. Later, however, the terms "unionism" and "unionist" were frequently applied when Lutherans who were not wholly agreed in doctrine and practice nevertheless workmany, to characterize the union of Reformed and Lutherans without removal of the doctrinal differences which divided them. Later, however, the terms "unionism" and "unionist" were frequently applied when Lutherans who were not wholly agreed in doctrine and practice nevertheless worked and worshiped together.[15] It is difficult to get a clearcut definition of unionism from the literature of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. An official definition of unionism by the Missouri Synod in 1932 reads: 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, Rom. 16:l7; 2 John 9, 10, and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2:17-21 (_Brief Statement_. . ., Par. 28). It should be noted that here unionism is _church fellowship_ with adherents of false doctrine generally, not only with Reformed, as the word _unionism_ was originally used. Another definition, later in time than the _Brief Statement_, appears to include in the concept of unionism far more than church fellowship with adherents of false doctrine, namely also "joint work of those not united in doctrine," and "mixed (promiscuous) prayer among those who profess the truth and those who deny any part of it." We quote the following, as embodying the essential points, from the longer statement: Religious unionism consists in joint worship and work of those not united in doctrine. Its essence is an agreement to disagree. . . . The statement then lists the familiar passages, a number of which have been treated exegetically above, and adds: In the light of these texts all joint ecclesiastical efforts for religious work (missionary, educational, etc.) and particularly joint worship and mixed (promiscuous) prayer among those who profess the truth and those why deny any part of it, is sinful unionism.[l6] In this last definition of unionism particular stress is laid on activities which do not assume church fellowship, like praying with Christians of another confession. The last part of this definition of unionism seemed to many to make impossible even the joint prayer for the Holy Spirit's aid by Lutherans of differing synods when they met to seek to overcome their differences. It was also thought to brand participation in prayer at mixed gatherings, civic and patriotic, as sinful unionism. 2. _Separatism_ Like the term _unionism_, so also the term _separatism_, is not a Biblical but an ecclesiastical word. Webster's _Third New International Dictionary_ defines separatism as "a disposition toward secession or schism," and a separatist as a "dissenter from an established church." While unionism is often and variously defined in the writings of our synodical fathers, the term separatism occurs much less frequently. Eckhardt gives the following definition of separation and of separatism: _Separation, eine Trennung auf schriftgemaesse Weise wegen falscher Lehre, And Separatismus eine Trennung wider die Schrift aus allerlei adorn Gruenden_.[17] It is evident that the concepts of unionism and separatism are intimately related. Unionism is attempted union when separation is in order, and separatism is separation when union is in order. 3. _Unionism and Separatism: Twin Dangers to the Church_ Both unionism and separatism constitute serious dangers to the church. Unionism ignores genuine differences in doctrine, and treats them as though they were unimportant. It tends to foster laxity in doctrine, which, like the little leaven, will in time leaven the whole lump (Gal. 5:9). On the other hand, separatism, as already St. Augustine clearly stated, sins against love and divides the church, just as surely as unionism undermines it. The church must therefore, for its own safety, shun both unionism and separatism. C. _SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR THE CHURCH IN THE PRACTICE OF FELLOWSHIP_ The task of avoiding unionism on the one hand and separatism on the other while faithfully performing the church's God-given tasks has proved difficult throughout the ages, and will continue to prove difficult until her Lord's return. Christians will at times be puzzled in specific situations, particularly when they are dealing with a church with which their own church is not in pulpit and altar fellowship. No statement, including this THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, can give complete guidance for every possible case. However, the following guidlines appear Scripturally sound, and in harmony with the Lutheran Confessions: 1. Our Synod should treasure the fellowship in the Gospel and in the sacraments which it enjoys with its sister churches and which it expresses through what is usually called pulpit and altar fellowship; and it should foster this fellowship with all diligence; 2. 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; 3. Our Synod should understand that, in the case of doctrinal discussions carried on with a view to achieving doctrinal unity, Christians not only _may_ but _should_ join in fervent prayer that God would guide and bless the discussions, trusting in Christ's promise Matt. 18:19: "Again, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaver.''[18] The opening prayer on such an occasion should be suited to the specific situation. If all parties meet in an atmosphere of mutual confidence there will be no problem. In a tense or an uncertain situation it may be suggested that the conference use the great hymns and liturgical prayers of the church, as was done at the Colloquy at Ratisbon where representatives of the two sides changed off opening the sessions with the "Veni Creator Spiritus" (Come, Holy Spirit) and the "Pater noster" (Our Father);[l9] and as did the fathers of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, when at the Milwaukee Colloquy the local pastor opened every session with a liturgical service.[20] 4. Our Synod should clearly recognize that, in the case of necessary work on the local, national, or international level, where the faith and confession of the church are not compromised, and where it appears essential that the churches of various denominations should cooperate or at least not work at cross purposes, our churches ought to cooperate willingly to the extent that the Word of God and conscience will allow. 5. In the many cases which do not seem to fall readily under the guidelines enunciated above (e.g., prayers at all kinds of meetings), every Christian should for his own person observe the apostle's injunction, "Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind" Rom. 14:5; and his warning, "He who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). With respect to his brother, whose conscience may not judge in all such matters as does his own, let every Christian observe the instruction of the same apostle, "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. . . .So each of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:10, 12). 6. It will be remembered that THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part II, closes with a discussion of churchly practice as a criterion of church fellowship, and of the difficulties experienced internally by the Synodical Conference in connection with the application of this criterion.[21] Our Synod will be well advised to retain the principle that Scriptural practice is important for chth it. May He grant us grace to proclaim His Word with boly with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, the church is edified. On the other hand, when ecclesiastical practice constitutes a demonstrable denial of the Gospel, the work of the church is undermined. However, Christians ought not apply this principle legalistically or employ doubtful logic and labored conclusions to prove that a certain practice is against the Gospel. In the matter of churchly practice the individual congregation should be guided by the same considerations as are set forth under point 5 above, on the basis of Rom. 14:5, 10, 12, 23. _CONCLUSION_ The Commission on Theology and Church Relations now submits this THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part I, II, and III, to _The Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod_ for reference and guidance. May our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved the church, and gave Himself for it (Eph. 5:25), protect and bless His church in all the world; may He Himself guide His children everywhere into all truth, and cleanse the church of all heresy and schism. May He bless also the church as it exists in _The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod_ and in the synods in fellowship with it. May He grant us grace to proclaim His Word with boldness and with power and to exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2); to love the brotherhood (1 Peter 2:17); to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15); to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, for there is one body and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all (Eph. 4:1-6). TH. F. NICKEL, _Chairman_ HERBERT J. A. BOWMAN, _Secretary_ ___________________________________________________________________ ENDNOTES [l] _Proceedings of the Forty-Third Regular Convention_, St. Paul, 1956, p. 550. [2] _Theology of Fellowship_, Preamble. [3] 1 John 1:3; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 4:11, 12. [4]. Gerhard, _Loci Theologici_, ed. Preuss, Berlin 1863, I, 202, 216; V, 355. [5] At the Colloquy at Ratisbon in 1602 Lutherans and Roman Catholics had taken turns with the opening prayers. (Cf. _Theology of Fellowship_, Part II, Endnote 46.) It appears that at Thorn the Lutheran spokesmen, among them Huelsemann and Calov, expected that the same arrangement would prevail. Upon arrival, however, they found that the Roman Catholics insisted that all opening services were to be conducted by Roman Catholics. The result was that the Lutherans refused to attend the opening services, and prayed instead in a private meeting of their own. In his _Historica Synrcretistica_ (1682) Abraham Calov not only gives valuable information and documents relating to the Colloquy of Thorn but also about the whole syncretistic controversy which developed in connection with the union efforts spearheaded by Georg Calixt. Calov gives among others these reasons advanced by the Lutherans why they could not yield to the Roman Catholic demands in the matter of the prayers: 1. The apostle forbids that anyone should have fellowship with darkness and the spiritual Babylon. 2 Cor. 6; Rev. 18. 2. There is nothing in the royal invitation (the colloquy had been called by the king of Poland) about joint prayers and ceremonies, rather that those who had left Roman Catholicism should be distinct and separate. 3. The royal invitation of Dec. 1, 1644, gives sacred guarantees that charity should be preserved among all. But parity is violated if we are hindered from reciting our own prayers and called, as it were, before a tribunal, with the prayers of the Roman Catholics thrust upon us. 4. The colloquy is to be charitable but it is a contradiction of charity to forbid those who have equal rights to conduct prayers with their fellows, to take away from them the liberty to pray in public: if we were to condescend to pray with the Roman Catholic gentlemen, we should sin against charity, by which we should give offense to the weak. Rom. 16. 5. Liberty has been granted three provinces of greater Prussia in the exercise of religion, according to the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Unaltered Augsburg Confession why should there not also be liberty of reciting prayers, as in our churches so also in a hall and in a public act of confession. 6. It militates against our protestation, in the preliminary conditions, which the Roman Catholic part has already confirmed. . . 7. It militates against our instructions, in which we are commanded to hold firmly and to defend the equality of our side. 8. It militates against our conscience, which forbids to harm the neighbor our neighbor, who is related to our faith, would be harmed if we were to pray together with Roman Catholics. 9. We have been instructed to procure and do all things which could be conducive to avoiding schisms in our churches, and establish harmony instead, and to nourish harmony with the churches which are outside [our realm], with which we are joined in fellowship of faith. But agreeing to pray [jointly] in public, will give cause for schism. disturb harmony, offend the churches without, who will be surprised that we should be willing to have the liberty of praying taken away from us. 10. We confess Christ also in our prayers, therefore he who forbids us these, takes away from us the liberty of confessing Christ. 11. Our instructions prohibit us from accepting from the Roman Catholics even so much as the manner of conducting the colloquy; much less will it be right to accept from them the manner of praying. 12. A charitable colloquy ought not to have the power of a synod, or the power to compel. But to compel the party of the Augsburg Confession and to forbid them prayer in public, what, I ask, is this if not to exercise the power of a synod against it? There follow additional reasons why the Lutherans believed they could not consent to pray with the Roman Catholic party. The Scriptures referred to are 2 Cor. 6:14-18 (Rev.18); and Romans 16:17, 18. In Part V of the second preliminary chapter to the same book, _Historica Syncretistica_, which he superscribes, "_Wahrer, Gott wohlgefaelliger Kirchenfriede muss auf Gottes Wort gogruendet, und der goettlichen Wahcheit in den Stuecken unsers Glaubens nicht entgegen sein_," (True Godpleasing peace in the church must be based on the Word of God, and dare not be contrary to the divine Word in the articles of faith). Calov quotes without exegesis the following passages: 2 John 10, 11; 2 Peter 1:1, 2; 2 Peter 3:17; Gal. 1:9, 1 Tim. 4:3-5, Rom. 16:17, 18; Titus 1:9, I0; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:10; 2 Cor. 6:14-17 and others. These, essentially, are the passages which have been quoted in the Synodical Conference against prayer with Christians of other confessions. For further information the student is directed to this work of Calov's. The text from which we quote reveals neither the name of the printer, nor the place of publication. The historical material on the whole syncretistic controversy is found in Schmid, Heinrich, _Geschichte der synkretistischen Streitigkeiten in der Zeit des Georg Calixt_, Erlangen, Verlag von Carl Heider, 1846. On the Colloquy of Thorn see also under _Thorn, Religionspespraech_, in _Herzogs Realenzyklopaedie fuer Protestantische Theologie und Kirche_, Leipzig, 1907, Vol. XIX. [6] See Webster's _Third New International Dictionary_, G. and C. Merriam Co., 1961, under "prophet." [7] Bauer (Arndt-Gingrich), under propheteuo (prophesy): "To proclaim a divine revelation; prophetically reveal what is hidden; foretell the future, prophesy." Thayer, under _propheteia_: "Prophecy, that is, discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events." The prophet, (_prophetes_) is then defined as "an interpreter or spokesman for God, one through whom God speaks, One who speaks forth by divine inspiration. . . .In the New Testament one who moved by the Spirit of God and hence His organ or spokesman solemnly declares to men what he has received by inspiration. . . ." This is essentially also the understanding in the 82-page article on prophetes and related words in Kittel, Friedrich, _Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament_, Vol. VI, pp. 781 863. For this understanding the article refers to Deut. 18:20; 34:10; Jer. 28:8ff.; Amos 3:7. [8] This understanding of "false prophet" is widely recognized by the lexica for New Testament studies. Bauer (Arndt-Gingrich) recognizes two meanings of _pseudoprophetes_: "False prophet, one who falsely claims to be a prophet of God or who prophesies falsely." Thayer: _pseudoprophetes_: "One who acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies." We translate the following on _pseudoprophetes_ from the lengthy article by Friedrich in the _Theologisches Woerterbuch_: The Word _pseudoprophetes_ is not employed by St Paul. It is found eleven times in the New Testament of these, three times in Matthew, and three times in the Apocalypse. The question whether the pseudoprophet is one who falsely claims to be a prophet of God or whether he is thus designated because he proclaims what is false. must be answered differently in the New Testament according to the context. In most cases pseudoprophets are people who come purporting to be prophets without actually being such. According to Matt. 715 they act as though they were prophets but are in essence liars. In Mark 13:22; Matt. 24 24; 1 John 4:1 (cp. 2:18) they are mentioned together with pseudo-Christs. As the pseudo-Christ is not a Christ who spreads lies, but falsely claims the title of Christ so the pseudoprophet is first of all a person who takes to himself the title of prophet without being a prophet. 1 John 4:1-3 shows that the pseudoprophet is also a man who proclaims lies; for he is recognized as a false prophet in this that he represents a false doctrine. 2 Peter 2:1 the false prophets of the Old Testament are compared with the false teachers of the present who bring in destructive heresies. They are therefore people who proclaim lies. But by and large the false prophet is not called a pseudoprophet because his teaching and prophesying is false but because he makes the false claim that he is a prophet. From the fact that he is a false prophet there follows then in most cases that he also proclaims what is false, and thus spreads lies. (P 831) [9] It should be noted, for a proper understanding of this passage, that the term doctrine in Scripture, when applied to the truth, is almost always in the singular. On the side of the truth Scripture knows of one doctrine, the doctrine of God or Christ. On the side of error it knows of doctrines, e.g., doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1). The Formula of Concord similarly uses doctrine in the singular for Gospel (FC, Ep. V, 5; see also FC, SD, X, 31). In later usage in the church we have become accustomed to speak of doctrines in the plural to designate what Luther and the earlier theologians of our church, and notably the Lutheran Confessions, called articles, that is, integral parts, of the one doctrine, that is, the Gospel. Thus, the article of justification is considered the chief article of the Christian doctrine. (Cf. THEOOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part II, p. 19.) [10] _Von den Conciliis_, etc. (WA 50, 544f.) [11] The RSV renders the passage, "Do not be mismated with unbelievers." [I2] Cf. _The Book of Concord_ (Tappert), 328. 41; 493. 6; 611. 6; 615. 22. [13] Brockhaus, _Conversationslexikon, 16. Band_ (Leipzig, 1887), p. 39. [14] The term _Synkretismus_ was employed during the period of 17th-century orthodoxy to denote efforts to reunite Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed. These efforts are described in Abraham Calov's _Historia Syncretistica_. [15] E. Eckhardt, _Homiletisches Reallexikon_ (St. Louis), has no less than 18 pages of reference to "union" and "unionism," indicating how live this subject was in the thinking of the synodical fathers. [16] Fuerbringer, L., Th. Engelder, and P. E. Kretzmann (eds.) _The Concordia Cyclopedia_ (St. Louis, 1927), under Unionism. [17] _Separation_, a separation in a Scriptural manner on account of false doctrine, and _separatism_, a separation against the Scripture for all kinds of other reasons. Cf. Eckhardt, under _Spaltung_. [18] The prayer here enjoined is prayer among Christians met for a God-pleasing purpose. Joint prayer with non-Christians is to be avoided. [19] Cf. THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part II, p. 19. [20] Ibid., p. 22. As one respected Lutheran theologian, Dr. Hermann Sasse of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia, has urged, the least that Christians can do on such occasions is to pray together: Lord Jesus Christ, with us abide, For round us falls the eventide Let not Thy Word, that heavenly light, For us be ever veiled in night. (_The Lutheran Hymnal_, 292) [21] THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP, Part II, pp. 24-29. ______________________________________________________________ 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: CFWLibrary@CRF.CUIS.EDU Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St.,Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (219) 481-2123 Fax: (219) 452-2126 ______________________________________________________________