Although the Scriptures have much to say about the spiritual
unity which binds all believers together in the body of
Christ and with one another and despite the exhortations of
the inspired writers that the church shot seek to manifest
its given unity externally without endangering the means
which the unity of the church is created, God's Word does not
prescribe specific procedures for carrying this out in each
particular case. St. Paul, example, writes to "the churches
of Galatia" that he was astonished that they were "so quickly
deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ a turning
to a different gospel." He says to the one who preaches a
gospel contrary to that which they had received, "Let him be
accursed" (Gal. 1:6). But the apostle does not tell us
precisely how he dealt with these Judaizers upon his arrival
in Galatia.
[17]
Did St. Paul continue to worship with them? Did he exclude
them from the Lord's Supper? And even if he had reported how
he handled this situation, this would not necessarily mean
that the specific procedure which he followed in this
particular instance would be applicable for all times and
places. We know, for example, that on one occasion St. Paul
refused to compel Titus to be circumcised so that "the truth
of the Gospel might be preserved" (Gal. 2:1-5). But he also
reports that in a different situation he insisted on the
circumcision of Timothy "because of the Jews that were in
those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek"
(Acts 16:3).
[18]
The Scriptures, rather than presenting the
church with specific regulations for each and every
inter-Christian relationship, set forth fundamental
principles which are to be applied to the unique situation in
which Christians find themselves at any given point in
history.
Down through the centuries, seeking to be faithful to the
principles of fellowship presented in the Scriptures,
Christians have developed various procedures and
organizational structures which have attempted to provide
orderly and helpful guidance for local congregations in their
relationships with one another.
During the first four centuries of the church as Christianity
spread throughout the world, it became necessary to develop
ways for geographically separated congregations to advise one
another regarding church membership. For the early church,
church fellowship was altar fellowship, and unity in doctrine
was its prerequisite.
[20] In keeping with this understanding,
circular letters were sent throughout Christendom reporting
excommunications. "Letters of Commendation" and later
"Letters of Fellowship" and "Letters of Peace" were
"universally required of Christians in a strange place as
evidence toward their reception by a new congregation or
bishops."
[21]
As a result of the Christianization of the West, membership
in church was more or less taken for granted in most parts of
Europe during the Middle Ages. Disruptive disagreement with
the traditional teaching authority of the church resulted in
excommunication. Following the Reformation, membership in
Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic church was largely a
matter of the faith confessed by the territorial rulers.
Luther while expressly refusing to condemn "entire churches
inside or outside Holy Empire of the German Nation" but "only
false and seductive doctrines and their stiff-necked
proponents and blasphemers" (Preface to The Book Concord,
p. 11),
[22]
taught that external unity in the church was not
a matter of ceremonies but of agreement "in doctrine and in
all its articles" and in " right use of the holy sacraments"
(FC SD, X, 31). With the rise of "denominationalism" in the
19th century, confessional Lutherans sought to apply these
same Scriptural principles of fellowship through declarations
of altar and pulpit fellowship with those church bodies with
which they were in doctrinal agreement and by the repudiation
of church fellowship with adherents of false doctrine. In
recent years other models for achieving external unity in an
increasingly splintered Christendom have been advocated.
In an attempt to provide guidance to the Synod today as it
relates other church bodies, we shall examine three of these
proposals which, more frequently mentioned in addition to the
more traditional ecclesiastical declaration of altar and
pulpit fellowship, and evaluate them on the basis the
Scriptural principles of fellowship presented in the first
section of this report.
[23]
1. Conciliarity
Conciliarity or conciliar fellowship refers to the model for
church unity which has been promoted by the World Council of
Churches. Serious consideration of church unity has taken
place in the WCC ever since its formation in 1948.
[24] In
1957 the Faith and Order Commission initiated a study on "The
Nature of the Unity We Seek." The New Delhi Assembly of the
WCC in 1961 spoke of the nature of the unity for which the
member churches of the WCC should strive in terms of a
visible unity of "all in each place" in "a fully committed
fellowship. "
[25]
The term "conciliar" was first used by the
Uppsala Assembly in 1968 when it spoke of "eventually
actualizing a truly universal, ecumenical, conciliar form of
common life and witness.
"[26] Conciliarity as the World
Council of Churches' model for unity in the church was given
definitive form in the report of a consultation convened by
its Faith and Order Commission to discuss "concepts of unity
and models of union" in Salamanca in September 1973.
[27]
Having noted that "Jesus Christ founded one Church," the
Salamanca Report says that "today we live in diverse churches
divided from one another." Consistent with this view, it
proceeds to speak of "a united Church" as a "vision" and as a
"goal" to be achieved at some point in the future as follows:
The one Church is to be envisioned as a
conciliar fellowship of local churches which are
themselves truly united. In this conciliar
fellowship each local church possesses, in
communion with the others, the fullness of
catholicity, witnesses to the same apostolic
faith and therefore recognizes the others as
belonging to the same Church of Christ and
guided by the same spirit.
[28]
According to this report, the word "conciliar" refers "to the
mutual relationships of local churches within the one
Church." Stating the "conciliar fellowship requires organic
union," many advocates of the World Council's model for
external unity in the church have expressly rejected t? idea
that "reconciled diversity" can serve as a model for the
"shape of the unity" to be sought.
[29]
Advocates of conciliarity recognize that unity in the church
demands certain amount of consensus. "Fellowship will only
last if it shares certain articulated forms of
expression."
[30]
But this should not be understood implying a
need for agreement in "a complete statement of faith." On the
contrary, consensus "can be confined to a few fundamental
affirmation provided it is relevant to present
conditions."
[31]
This means that "the traditional
expressions of our identity as confessions and communions"
must be recognized as "time- bound in their terms of
reference and relevance."
[32]
The divided churches" readiness to surrender their
traditional identity can be assisted by recognizing that "the
criteria for establishing unity are not fixed in
advance."
[33]
The Salamanca study document says that recent
New Testament scholarship has contributed to the possibility
of achieving this kind of consensus by demonstrating that
there was far greater diversity in the early church than had
generally been supposed at the beginning of the ecumenical
movement.
[34]
In recent years the question has been raised
ever more insistently as to whether the New
Testament really contains a concept of unity. At
first the churches assumed that it did. Each was
convinced that its own concept of unity was
derived from the New Testament or, at any rate,
could be substantiated from the New Testament.
They also agreed that they must all submit
themselves and their concepts to the judgment of
Holy Scripture and they expected that one
correct concept of unity would emerge from this
confrontation with the Bible. They soon
discovered, however, that their different
concepts all represented contractions of the
witness of Scripture. They realized that the
claims of the other churches were not altogether
unfounded.
[35]
Conciliarity, therefore, in addition to demanding organic
unity, embraces a unity in diversity which includes doctrinal
pluralism.
How does conciliarity as a model for external unity in the
church stand up when measured by the Scriptural principles of
fellowship? On the positive side, it should be recognized
that this proposal is to be commended for its attempt to
pursue the Biblical mandate to seek external unity in the
church. The Scriptures clearly teach that it is God's will
and command that those who are one in Christ should seek to
manifest their spiritual unity in His body externally (Thesis
9). At the same time, it must also be stated that this
proposal, failing to distinguish clearly between spiritual
fellowship and church fellowship, does not take seriously
either the unity of the church which is given with faith
(Thesis 1) or external unity in the church which constituted
by agreement in confession (Thesis 7). As a result the
advocate of this model frequently give the impression that
Christians can actual effect the spiritual unity of the
church through their own efforts toward organic union. In
addition conciliarity, based on a doctrinal pluralist
resulting from the forfeiture of the normative authority of
Holy Scripture (Thesis 3), comes into direct conflict with
the Scriptural exhortations for Christians to seek the
edification of the members of Christ's body by confessing the
faith in accordance with God's Word (Thesis 6). The
Scriptures condemn all attempts to achieve external unity in
the church by compromising the prophetic and apostolic
witness through which the Holy Spirit works to create the
unity of the church as a violation of the law of Christian
love (Thesis 5).
2. Reconciled Diversity
Just as conciliarity has come to be identified with the World
Council of Churches, so reconciled diversity is the model for
external unity in the church which is generally thought of in
connection with the Lutheran World Federation and the other
confessional groupings of churches. This model is described
in a discussion paper on "The Ecumenical Role of the World
Confessional Families in the One Ecumenical Movement" which
was discussed at a 1974 meeting of the Conference of
Secretaries of World Confessional Families.
[36]
The advocates of reconciled diversity, referring to the
"acceptance of one another not only as individuals, but also
in our different traditions and confessions" as a
"fundamental insight of the ecumenical movement," maintain
"that fidelity to truth as perceived by individual
confessions is not incompatible."
[37] Although the church of
Jesus Christ is "by definition confessing Church with its
identity grounded in him who is confessed as Lord," this
confession "is expressed incompletely in the different
confessional identities of the world families of
churches."
[38]
It is a mistake, according to the report of
the World Confessional Families, to equate confessional
identity with an anti-ecumenical stance. To expect "some kind
of uniform ecumenical Christian theology and culture to
emerge in a uniform pattern would be to deny the multiplicity
of the gifts of the Spirit and the manifold variety of
creation and history."
[39] This report continues:
We consider the variety of denominational
heritages legitimate insofar as the truth of the
one faith explicates itself in history in a
variety of expressions. We do not overlook the
fact that such explications of the faith have
been marked by error which has threatened the
unity of the Church. On the other hand, it needs
to be seen that a heritage remains legitimate
and can be preserved, if it is properly
translated into new historical situations. If it
is, it remains a valuable contribution to the
richness of life in the Church universal.
In the open encounter with other heritages the contribution
of a particular denomination can lose its character of
denominational exclusiveness. Therefore, unity and fellowship
among the churches do not require uniformity of faith and
order, but can and must encompass a plurality or diversity of
convictions and traditions. . . . Confessional localities
ecumenical commitment are no contradiction, but are
one -- paradoxical as it may seem. When existing differences
between churches lose their divisive character, a vision of
unity emerges which has the character of a "Reconciled
diversity."
[40]
The conclusion of this way of thinking, therefore, is that it
is not organic unity but "'reconciled diversity,' which
acknowledges under the Gospel that the things of the faith
which unite are greater than those that separate," which
offers the most appropriate model of achieving external unity
in the church today.
[41]
Bishop Andreas Aarflot from Norway has encouraged the
Lutheran World Federation to pursue the goal of "reconciled
diversity" in its quest for external unity in the church. In
an essay he presented to the sixth assembly of the LWF in
Dar-es-Salaam in 1977, Bishop Aarflot asks the question:
"What kind of unity do we seek?"
[42] In answering this
question, Aarflot takes up what he calls "two tendencies
within the ecumenical movement": "organic union" as the
attempt to unite churches of different confessional
traditions "in such a way that they surrender their previous
confessional identity in order to constitute a new church
with new norms and new identity" and "reconciled diversity"
as "an ecumenical fellowship in which each confessional
heritage and confessional identity is still maintained."
[43]
Contending that both of these models "are lacking in clarity
and explicitness," he concludes that "the idea of unity as
'reconciled diversity' can still be of some help, as long as
it is purified and critically examined diversity, since it
describes a way of unity which does not automatically entail
the surrender of confessional traditions and confessional
identities."
[44] Aarflot continues:
This way to unity is a way of living encounter,
spiritual experience to-tether, theological
dialogue and mutual correction, a way in which
the distinctiveness of each partner is not lost
sight of but stands out, is transformed and
renewed, and in this way becomes visible and
palpable to the other partners. There is no
glossing over differences. Nor are the
differences simply preserved and maintained
unaltered. But they lose their divisive
character as they are reconciled to each
other.
[45]
Bishop Aaarflot strongly emphasizes the element of
reconciliation. "Unity and reconciliation do not mean mere
coexistences" but "genuine church fellowship, including as
its essential elements the recognition of baptism, pulpit and
altar fellowship, the mutual recognition of church
ministries, and a binding common purpose of witness and
service."
[46]
Although differences exist between conciliarity and
reconciled diversity as models for implementing external
unity in the church, they share the same basic strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the Scriptural principles of
fellowship. Like conciliarity, reconciled diversity rightly
emphasizes the Scriptural exhortations for Christians "to
maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"
(Thesis 9).
[47]
But despite a greater awareness by those who
advocate reconciled diversity that "certain elements of
common Christian understanding are indispensable for the true
unity of the church" (Thesis 6), and that "we must . . .
carry the burden of separation wherever this is necessary in
order to witness to the truth of the gospel" (Thesis 8),
[48]
in the final analysis this model for external unity in the
church is founded on the unscriptural notion that church
fellowship can be based on agreement in the Gospel in the
narrow sense while tolerating disagreement in other doctrines
taught in the Scriptures (Thesis 7).
[49] Like "the lowest
common denominator" approach of conciliarism, so the
"agreement to disagree" model of reconciled diversity
violates the law of Christian love through its willingness to
practice "genuine church fellowship" where there is
disagreement "in doctrine and in all its articles" and in
"the right use of the holy sacraments" (Thesis 5).
There is a troublesome ambiguity about reconciled diversity
as a model for effecting external unity in the church. As the
Rev. John Gatu, general secretary of the Presbyterian Church
of East Africa, stated in his response to Bishop Aarflot's
address to the LWF assembly: "My problem . . . is that the
speaker expects a perpetuation of a Lutheran identity in the
organic union. That of course is tantamount to saying that
the only way to church unity is for all of us to become
Lutherans!"
[50]
Reconciled diversity either has no
theological reason for preserving the identity of the
individual confessional families in that it is genuinely
willing to tolerate doctrinal pluralism, or it implicitly
suggests the superiority of one confessional position over
the other, a stance which is offensive to Christians
belonging to other confessional families who are expected to
be a part of this external unity of reconciled diversity.
Each of these viewpoints compromises certain of the
Scriptural principles of fellowship.
3. Selective Fellowship
Selective altar and pulpit fellowship is sometimes proposed
as a model for external unity in the church. The 1946
convention of the former American Lutheran Church, for
example, adopted a resolution calling for the practice of
selective fellowship.
[51]
Memorials requesting that The
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod permit selective fellowship
have been submitted to each of the last seven conventions of
the Synod.
[52]
In addition, a number of responses to the
CTCR's "Bible Study on Fellowship" have also suggested that
the Synod adopt this way of relating to other Christian
churches. It is argued that since differences within church
bodies are often as great as those dividing denominations,
selective fellowship offers a model for the practice of
church fellowship which is faithful not only to the
Scriptural mandate to preserve the truth of God's Word but
also to the apostolic exhortations to manifest love for all
fellow members of Christ's body, no matter where they may be
located. But what is selective fellowship?
[53] The answers to
this question are almost as numerous and varied as those who
propose it as a model for working toward external unity in
the church. There are those who regard selective fellowship
as a church body's decision to allow each of its local
congregations to decide on whether or not to engage in altar
and pulpit fellowship with a congregation of another church
body on the basis of a repudiation of the false doctrine(s)
officially held by the denomination to which it belongs.
[54]
Some, thinking of church fellowship as being constituted by
faith in the heart (fides qua), advocate this model because
they believe that the local congregation is in a better
position than synodical conventions to recognize with which
members of other denominations its members are already in
fellowship by virtue of their common faith in Jesus
Christ.
[55]
Still others regard selective fellowship as a
model for external unity in the church which provides an
opportunity for Christians at the local level to give
expression to their unity in Christ despite their
differences in doctrine.
[56]
It is not necessary to attempt to describe here each and
every variation of this model. Quite obviously, different
forms of selective fellowship come into conflict with
different principles of fellowship. A selective fellowship,
for example, which would base altar and pulpit fellowship on
faith in the heart confuses spiritual fellowship in the body
of Christ (Thesis 1) and church fellowship (Thesis 7).
[57]
Congregational decisions to engage in altar and pulpit
fellowship despite differences in doctrine violate the divine
mandate to confess the faith as it is taught in the
Scriptures for the sake of the edification and extension of
the church (Thesis 6). But in view of the general confusion
surrounding the meaning of selective fellowship and taking
into account the high mobility of both lay people and clergy
in a time when the theological positions of pastors and
congregations of even the same denomination vary so greatly,
all forms of selective fellowship, including that which
would base congregational altar and pulpit fellowship on
agreement in doctrine, must be regarded today as falling
short of fulfilling the law of Christian love which seeks the
edification of Christ's body (Thesis 5). Selective fellowship
not only provides an opportunity for offense by appearing to
be indifferent to doctrine, but it is also inherently
conducive to chaos, confusion, individualism, and even
rebellion.
[58]
Moreover, as Hermann Sasse has emphasized, it
is "impossible to separate the fellowship between local
churches from the fellowship between the church bodies to
which they belong."
[59]
4. Ecclesiastical Declaration of Altar
and Pulpit Fellowship
From the very beginning of the Reformation Luther and his
followers sought external unity in the church on the basis of
agreement in the confession of the apostolic faith.
Expressing the hope that they might be "united in one, true
religion" with their opponents "even as we are all under one
Christ," the Lutherans in 1530 in Augsburg presented "a
confession of our pastors' and preachers' teaching and of our
own faith, setting forth how and in what manner, on the basis
of the Holy Scriptures, these things are preached, taught,
communicated, and embraced in our lands" (Preface to the
Augsburg Confession, 8-10). They also participated in a
variety of doctrinal discussions with leaders of the Reformed
Church, e.g., in Marburg in 1529. Their concern was not "that
ceremonies, instituted by men, should be observed
uniformly," but that "the Gospel be preached in conformity
with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be
administered in accordance with the divine Word" (AC, VII,
2-3). Altar and pulpit fellowship apart from agreement in
doctrine was unthinkable for them.
[60]
In the years following the settlement of the serious
doctrinal disputes which arose in the wake of Luther's death,
church fellowship among the various territorial churches (the
European nations in which Lutherans lived were divided into
territories, with each one having its own church) was
achieved by agreement with the confessional writings in The
Book of Concord (1580). Subscription to these confessions,
understood by all to be a binding commitment to the entire
doctrinal content of these writings, meant that pastors were
allowed in each other's pulpits and that lay people were
welcomed at each other's altars
[61]
With the passing of time and as a result of the coming of
Lutherans to America, however, problems concerning church
fellowship arose. In the absence of the territorial churches,
ecclesiastical structures such as ministeria (organizations
of ministers) and synods (organizations of congregations
together with their pastors) were developed. Concerned about
external unity in the church, these new churches had to
answer the question regarding church fellowship with one
another as well as with the growing number of other
denominations present on the American scene. Free conferences
for the purpose of discussing doctrine were held.
[62] These
discussions revealed that many of these new churches were
divided not only by language, national origin, and church
polity but also by doctrinal differences resulting from the
various rationalistic, pietistic, and confessional circles
out of which they had originated in Europe. Moreover, it soon
became quite obvious that Lutherans were no longer in
agreement regarding the meaning of subscription to the
Lutheran Confessions.
[63]
Altar and pulpit fellowship,
therefore, could not be established among all of these young
churches. But the very fact that doctrinal discussions were
held and that there was a general consensus that some kind of
identification with at least the Augsburg Confession was
necessary for the celebration of church fellowship
illustrates that 19th-century Lutherans in America generally
followed the model of ecclesiastical declarations of altar
and pulpit fellowship on the basis of agreement in doctrine
at the church-body level.
[64]
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, in accordance with this
historical Lutheran precedent, has consistently followed this
model with respect to its official relationships with other
church bodies. Desiring to avoid both sectarianism or
separatism
[65]
as well as syncretism or unionism,
[66] it has
sought external unity in the church through the use of the
model of ecclesiastical declarations of altar and pulpit
fellowship based on agreement in doctrine and practice. From
the time of its origin in 1847, the Synod has always insisted
on formal doctrinal discussions with another church body
prior to establishing altar and pulpit fellowship with it.
Discussions between official representatives from each church
body are carried out on the basis of the following
principles:
1. That the Confessions must be subscribed to
quia, not quatenus, i e., because, not
merely insofar as, they are correct
expositions of the Scripture;
2. That all doctrines taught in the Confessions
are binding;
3. That subscription to the Confessions must be
implemented by corresponding public teaching
(publica doctrina) in pulpit, instruction
room, seminary, and in the church's
publications, and that all who departed from
this norm were to be disciplined.
[67]
It was on the basis of these principles that the Missouri
Synod participated in the free conferences which took place
during the last half of the 19th century and that it declared
altar and pulpit fellowship with other Lutheran synods and
was instrumental in organizing the Evangelical Lutheran
Synodical Conference of North America in 1872.
[68] These
principles also manifest themselves in the long history of
doctrinal discussions which took place with The American
Lutheran Church (and its predecessor bodies) prior to the
declaration of altar and pulpit fellowship with this church
body by majority vote at the 1969 convention of the Synod.
The practical implications of a declaration of altar and
pulpit fellowship with another church body are set forth in
the resolution in which the LCMS declared altar and pulpit
fellowship with The ALC.
[69]
First noting that "with the
establishment of fellowship each church body retains its
separate identity and organizational structure, procedures,
and policies," this resolution holds that "a congregation of
one church body may call as its pastor a clergyman of the
other church body, provided that prior consultation has
resulted in mutual approval by the respective administrative
officials of both church bodies involved in such a call."
This document then proceeds to state that altar and pulpit
fellowship will express itself in the following ways:
1. Pastors in good standing in each church body
may be invited to preach from the pulpits of
congregations of the other church body.
2. Congregations of church bodies in fellowship
may hold joint worship services.
3. Members of the congregations of each church
body who are in good standing in their own
congregation and do not violate principles
regulating Communion practices in the host
congregation shall be welcome guests at the
altar of congregations of the other church body.
In the interest of the pastoral care and
responsibility of the congregation of which an
individual is a member, there should not be an
indiscriminate visiting of the altars of
churches either within his own church body or at
the altars of congregations of that church body
with which his church is in fellowship.
4. Members in good standing may transfer their
membership from a congregation of one church
body to a congregation of the other church body
in conformity with the practices of the
receiving congregation.
These provisions make it clear that the Synod regards altar
and pulpit fellowship to be an alternative to organic merger
as an acceptable way of satisfying the divine mandate that
the members of the body of Christ seek to manifest their
unity externally.
[70]
This model of ecclesiastical declaration of altar and pulpit
fellowship does not in and of itself stand in conflict with
any of the Scriptural principles of fellowship set forth in
the first section of this report. On the contrary, with its
insistence that external unity in the church be based on
agreement in doctrine and practice, for example, this model
allows for making a clear distinction between spiritual unity
in the body of Christ, which is given with faith (Thesis 1),
and external unity, which is constituted by agreement in the
faith which is confessed for the sake of the unity of the
church (Thesis 7).
[71]
By making the declaration of altar and
pulpit fellowship dependent on the prior assurance that
agreement in doctrine and practice actually exists between
the church bodies involved, it takes seriously the divine
mandate that the faith be confessed in accordance with the
Scriptures for the sake of the edification and extension of
Christ's body, the church (Thesis 6). It is in this way that
this model seeks to guard against the loveless toleration of
any compromising of the Gospel through which the spiritual
unity of the church comes into being (Thesis 8). And by
requiring that the declaration of church fellowship be a
church-body decision rather than merely a congregational
decision, it seeks to minimize the danger of being misled by
a false witness of external unity where agreement in
confession does not in fact exist (Thesis 5).
