The difference between the LCR and the LC-MS on Unionism
Pastor Ted Derer
Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, Courtland, Ontario
What then is Unionism? Answer according to our 1943 Small Catechism [SC]: "Joint worship and church work of those not united in doctrine," [SC, p. 221]. The Small Catechism consistently explains that using the doctrine of the Church properly includes both a positive and a negative duty. Positively each individual has a duty to avoid separatism [CnM, p. 136] by religiously receiving the orthodox, or as our catechism puts it [SC, Q186B] to "adhere to the Church which teaches the Word of God in all its purity." Negatively, each individual has a duty to flee from the heterodox: "Every believer for the sake of his salvation must flee all false teachers and avoid all heterodox congregations or sects" [CnM, p. 113]. As our catechism puts it, each believer has a duty [SC, Q186D] to "avoid all false churches and all other organizations that profess a religion that is false."
The duty of Christian fellowship may be viewed as a single duty to confess the divine truth, because the orthodox bear witness only to the truth, while the heterodox in part bear witness to falsehood. When an erring religious body has a single teacher who stubbornly holds to even a single doctrine that is not from the Bible, be it ever so unimportant a point, he is breaking the second commandment, turning people away from Christ and so attacking the Gospel itself (Mat 15:9, 13f, Mat 6:22-24, 2 Co 11:2-4). Each individual has a duty to examine and to avoid each false teacher [SC, Q186D: Mat 7:15, 1Jo 4:1, Rom 16:17, 2Co 6:14-18]. When an individual follower remains in fellowship with a stubborn false teacher, that follower too is sinning, and is in danger of suffering for wickedness (Jer 14:13-16). No doubt, there are true children of God among those who stubbornly teach false doctrine [CnM, p. 101]. But those who hold to true doctrine should not practice fellowship with those who receive a false teacher, because this practice would be sinful too: it would deny God’s Word, support falsehood and fail to correct the false teacher and those who follow him (Jer 15:1, 19-21, 1Ti 5:22, 1Jo 1:3-10).
The Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR) continue to confess the Brief Statement which says: "Since God ordained that His Word only, without the admixture of human doctrine, be taught and believed in the Christian Church, 1 Pet. 4: 11; John 8:31,32; 1 Tim. 6:3,4, all Christians are required by God to discriminate between orthodox and heterodox church-bodies, Matt. 7:15, to have church-fellowship only with orthodox church-bodies, and, in case they have strayed into heterodox church-bodies, to leave them, Rom. 16:17. 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. 16:17; 2 John 9,10, and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2:17-21" [BrSt, para. 28]
Confessing this truth may involve the recognition that unionism concerns divine law as stated in the 3rd and 8th commandments, but in the LCR, correction and reform of error are sought in an evangelical way, with the goal of a proper willing work of evangelical liberty. The LCR deeply appreciate that the Brief Statement also says: "a church does not forfeit its orthodox character through the casual intrusion of errors, provided these are combated and eventually removed by means of doctrinal discipline, Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 1: 3" [BrSt, Para. 29] The evangelical approach is taken to heart so that the Gospel might have a general predominance in our teaching. [L&G, p.403] This may be observed also in LCR publications. (e.g. [SS], and [LoD]).
Antithesis 1: The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LC-MS) began on 1/18/1947 to voluntarily and knowingly remain in fellowship with those who do not repudiate unionism. "A statement" that included false doctrine concerning unionism had been drawn up and originally signed by 44 LC-MS pastors and professors, but the number of signers grew to 258 before the controversy was "solved." By action of Synodical President Behnken, the statement was officially "withdrawn as a basis of discussion" "but not retracted". [TSC, points 17-18] Ever since this time, the LC-MS has harbored those who reject confessional statements about unionism.
Recently, the LC-MS officially allowed certain forms of fellowship to be practiced by clergy that do not rise to the "level of pulpit or altar fellowship"(1). This "levels of fellowship" doctrine, as it has been called, has the side-effect that it implicitly permits all lower level expressions of fellowship, if, in the compromising minds of synodical officials, the practices do not rise to the level of pulpit or altar fellowship. Since official acts in public worship by ordained clergy are deemed not to reach this standard, many other lesser things are officially ignored, e.g. individual altar fellowship, or individual prayer fellowship. Such things are evidently permissible since they are clearly of a lower level. More recent statements about fellowship(2) reflect that the LC-MS is intentionally silent on unionistic sins of individuals.
The loose LC-MS stance on fellowship and unionism accounts for many sinful actions that continue today without scolding and without correction(3). It is apparent that the Brief Statement has been abandoned when its words are recited as a point of historical comparison with modern unionistic practices that are openly tolerated within the LC-MS [LUC, p. 33f]. Indeed the LC-MS admits internal disagreement as to how to apply the doctrine that it historically, at least, held(4). Hopefully there are still some individuals and congregations who in simplicity still apply the standard that they formerly practiced.
Antithesis 2: Although the doctrine of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) is superficially different, practical indifference to unionism by individuals is roughly the same in the WELS as it is in the LC-MS. In a 1971 survey, 100% of the clergy of WELS rejected unionistic pulpit exchange, but only 22% of the Laity rejected it. At that same time in the LC-MS only 47% of the clergy of LC-MS rejected unionistic pulpit exchange, while only 7% of the LC-MS laity rejected it [LE]. One WELS clergyman notes prominent recent examples of inconsistency and legalism concerning fellowship within the WELS [SF].
We would like to encourage those who still actually practice the admonition of sin despite the opposition of synodical officials. Those who follow the old standard, the standard which the LCR still practice, have the comfort that in their endeavors, they have the approving words of Christ: "Thou hast gained thy brother." Mat 18:15 This is our great goal and hope in testifying to sinners of their sin, guilt, and of the divine wrath against sin: that they all might hear believe and cling to the free gift of God’s grace in the redemption of Jesus Christ that He has earned for us on the cross. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. May God restore the preaching of true repentance in all areas to us all; and also grant to all those within the LC-MS and WELS one accord in doctrine according to His will, that they might be delivered from the plague of discord that has rested upon them in recent times.
An example of the sin of unionism brings this matter into focus. The Roman Catholic Church has the Pope who officially teaches that the Sacrament of the Altar is an un-bloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead [CCC, p. 344-345]. The SC rejects this doctrine in the answer to Q305, explaining "The idea… is contrary to the Word of God, which teaches that Christ’s one sacrifice made full atonement for all sins. Heb 10:14, 18." When a woman is in fellowship with the Pope who officially teaches this, we withdraw fellowship from her, and avoid unionism with her in order to testify to the truth of Christ’s completed atonement on the cross. We believe Christ who said, It is finished. Joh 19:30 We testify against the Pope who has never retracted his denial of the atonement, and we testify against her, because she is in fellowship with the Pope, and she therefore supports the Pope’s lie. The Pope is treated like a liar. Anyone who still receives the Pope is treated like an accessory to a liar. To practice fellowship with a known liar is to equate a lie with the truth. The issue is essentially the same with any other false doctrine, and with any other false teacher.
Yet men practicing unionism have devised all sorts of ways to unite truth and falsehood. Men form councils and federations of Churches or Church bodies to draw them together in joint worship and work, while doctrinal differences are ignored among them. Anyone can teach what he thinks. If they have a doctrinal basis, as the World Council of Churches has, each member may add doctrine or ignore doctrine as he pleases. Even though they may foster and publish biblical studies, they never come to any agreement in doctrine. The only object there is to have one large external body instead of several smaller ones. Another form of unionism is the "Community" or non-denominational church. Everyone in the community or area is welcomed as a member, regardless of what they believe, and are even able to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper together. These forms of unionism are often riddled with coarse modern and liberal error in their teachings. They have turned away from the cardinal doctrines and teach mostly about works. But there are other forms. Many Christians even think that it is alright to agree only on "fundamental" things. Others only agree about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. On such a limited agreement they form groups and co-operate: worship together, commune together, pray together, evangelize together, and exchange pulpits and brotherly greetings. All this sounds very sane and sensible to most people, but it is deceitful, and so it is devilish.
Unionism is dangerous because it thrives on recognition. If we pat each other on the back, call each other "brother" and pray and commune together, then we are nonverbally saying: "You will be saved by believing whatever doctrines you are in fellowship with; and I will be saved by believing what I believe. Your doctrines, even though I do not find them in the Bible and do not agree with them could be considered 'works of darkness' yet I will not say anything. I will not reprove them. You can still do well by believing and teaching them." The fact that one who engages in unionistic practices knows the truth, and is conservative does not help matters, but may, in fact, make it much worse, more diabolical. For then it may not be merely a lie borne of ignorance, but may even become an intentional lie.
Now according to the Bible, we should recognize others as being Christians if they confess their faith in the atoning work of Christ; and we should recognize a church as being Christian if it teaches the Gospel, even though the doctrines of men are taught alongside of the Gospel. But recognizing them as Christian does not mean that we join with them in worship or spiritual work. We rather withhold the hand of fellowship and so "reprove the works of darkness." Eph 5:11. Jesus warned us to "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing" i.e., apparently members of the flock of Christ. "but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Mat 7:17 And St. Paul wrote to Timothy, "If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thyself." 1Ti 6:3ff. And in a similar vein St. Paul wrote to the Romans, "Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." Rom 16:17f.
Now why do you suppose He commands such a thing? Surely it would make more sense for all believers to work together to advance the Kingdom of God, laying aside petty differences would it not? But this is just it. The Kingdom
of God is not built by mixing the Gospel with any opinions of men. It is the Gospel and only the Gospel that saves us as Jesus said, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. And in John 8:31 He says, "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Yes, every teaching of the Bible be it large or small, important or apparently trifling, points us directly to Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. (c.f. Rom 10:10ff)
And so it has always been, that lies have never built God’s Kingdom. Jeremiah spoke of the prophets who "cause My people to err by their lies and by their lightness." Jer 23:23. And in Isaiah 3:12, "They which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." And so here learn only eternal destruction can come from teachings that are not of Christ. (Joh 10:10)
By the grace of God, the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation, in the spirit of C. F. W. Walther, still steadfastly confess the Brief Statement of 1932, including paragraphs 28 and 29 which repudiate unionism. We still steadfastly teach the doctrine of the small catechism of 1943 which explains this in simple fashion, even to children.
Oh may our gracious Lord God grant that we may always so treasure the Gospel of salvation through faith in JESUS CHRIST, without the deeds of the Law, and that we may continue in His Word alone, AMEN. Soli Deo Gloria.
In Christ Jesus, and In His Service,
Rev. Theodore J. Derer
The duty of Christian fellowship may be viewed as a single duty to confess the divine truth, because the orthodox bear witness only to the truth, while the heterodox in part bear witness to falsehood. When an erring religious body has a single teacher who stubbornly holds to even a single doctrine that is not from the Bible, be it ever so unimportant a point, he is breaking the second commandment, turning people away from Christ and so attacking the Gospel itself (Mat 15:9, 13f, Mat 6:22-24, 2 Co 11:2-4). Each individual has a duty to examine and to avoid each false teacher [SC, Q186D: Mat 7:15, 1Jo 4:1, Rom 16:17, 2Co 6:14-18]. When an individual follower remains in fellowship with a stubborn false teacher, that follower too is sinning, and is in danger of suffering for wickedness (Jer 14:13-16). No doubt, there are true children of God among those who stubbornly teach false doctrine [CnM, p. 101]. But those who hold to true doctrine should not practice fellowship with those who receive a false teacher, because this practice would be sinful too: it would deny God’s Word, support falsehood and fail to correct the false teacher and those who follow him (Jer 15:1, 19-21, 1Ti 5:22, 1Jo 1:3-10).
The Lutheran Churches of the Reformation (LCR) continue to confess the Brief Statement which says: "Since God ordained that His Word only, without the admixture of human doctrine, be taught and believed in the Christian Church, 1 Pet. 4: 11; John 8:31,32; 1 Tim. 6:3,4, all Christians are required by God to discriminate between orthodox and heterodox church-bodies, Matt. 7:15, to have church-fellowship only with orthodox church-bodies, and, in case they have strayed into heterodox church-bodies, to leave them, Rom. 16:17. 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. 16:17; 2 John 9,10, and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2:17-21" [BrSt, para. 28]
Confessing this truth may involve the recognition that unionism concerns divine law as stated in the 3rd and 8th commandments, but in the LCR, correction and reform of error are sought in an evangelical way, with the goal of a proper willing work of evangelical liberty. The LCR deeply appreciate that the Brief Statement also says: "a church does not forfeit its orthodox character through the casual intrusion of errors, provided these are combated and eventually removed by means of doctrinal discipline, Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 1: 3" [BrSt, Para. 29] The evangelical approach is taken to heart so that the Gospel might have a general predominance in our teaching. [L&G, p.403] This may be observed also in LCR publications. (e.g. [SS], and [LoD]).
Antithesis 1: The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LC-MS) began on 1/18/1947 to voluntarily and knowingly remain in fellowship with those who do not repudiate unionism. "A statement" that included false doctrine concerning unionism had been drawn up and originally signed by 44 LC-MS pastors and professors, but the number of signers grew to 258 before the controversy was "solved." By action of Synodical President Behnken, the statement was officially "withdrawn as a basis of discussion" "but not retracted". [TSC, points 17-18] Ever since this time, the LC-MS has harbored those who reject confessional statements about unionism.
Recently, the LC-MS officially allowed certain forms of fellowship to be practiced by clergy that do not rise to the "level of pulpit or altar fellowship"(1). This "levels of fellowship" doctrine, as it has been called, has the side-effect that it implicitly permits all lower level expressions of fellowship, if, in the compromising minds of synodical officials, the practices do not rise to the level of pulpit or altar fellowship. Since official acts in public worship by ordained clergy are deemed not to reach this standard, many other lesser things are officially ignored, e.g. individual altar fellowship, or individual prayer fellowship. Such things are evidently permissible since they are clearly of a lower level. More recent statements about fellowship(2) reflect that the LC-MS is intentionally silent on unionistic sins of individuals.
The loose LC-MS stance on fellowship and unionism accounts for many sinful actions that continue today without scolding and without correction(3). It is apparent that the Brief Statement has been abandoned when its words are recited as a point of historical comparison with modern unionistic practices that are openly tolerated within the LC-MS [LUC, p. 33f]. Indeed the LC-MS admits internal disagreement as to how to apply the doctrine that it historically, at least, held(4). Hopefully there are still some individuals and congregations who in simplicity still apply the standard that they formerly practiced.
Antithesis 2: Although the doctrine of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) is superficially different, practical indifference to unionism by individuals is roughly the same in the WELS as it is in the LC-MS. In a 1971 survey, 100% of the clergy of WELS rejected unionistic pulpit exchange, but only 22% of the Laity rejected it. At that same time in the LC-MS only 47% of the clergy of LC-MS rejected unionistic pulpit exchange, while only 7% of the LC-MS laity rejected it [LE]. One WELS clergyman notes prominent recent examples of inconsistency and legalism concerning fellowship within the WELS [SF].
We would like to encourage those who still actually practice the admonition of sin despite the opposition of synodical officials. Those who follow the old standard, the standard which the LCR still practice, have the comfort that in their endeavors, they have the approving words of Christ: "Thou hast gained thy brother." Mat 18:15 This is our great goal and hope in testifying to sinners of their sin, guilt, and of the divine wrath against sin: that they all might hear believe and cling to the free gift of God’s grace in the redemption of Jesus Christ that He has earned for us on the cross. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. May God restore the preaching of true repentance in all areas to us all; and also grant to all those within the LC-MS and WELS one accord in doctrine according to His will, that they might be delivered from the plague of discord that has rested upon them in recent times.
An example of the sin of unionism brings this matter into focus. The Roman Catholic Church has the Pope who officially teaches that the Sacrament of the Altar is an un-bloody sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead [CCC, p. 344-345]. The SC rejects this doctrine in the answer to Q305, explaining "The idea… is contrary to the Word of God, which teaches that Christ’s one sacrifice made full atonement for all sins. Heb 10:14, 18." When a woman is in fellowship with the Pope who officially teaches this, we withdraw fellowship from her, and avoid unionism with her in order to testify to the truth of Christ’s completed atonement on the cross. We believe Christ who said, It is finished. Joh 19:30 We testify against the Pope who has never retracted his denial of the atonement, and we testify against her, because she is in fellowship with the Pope, and she therefore supports the Pope’s lie. The Pope is treated like a liar. Anyone who still receives the Pope is treated like an accessory to a liar. To practice fellowship with a known liar is to equate a lie with the truth. The issue is essentially the same with any other false doctrine, and with any other false teacher.
Yet men practicing unionism have devised all sorts of ways to unite truth and falsehood. Men form councils and federations of Churches or Church bodies to draw them together in joint worship and work, while doctrinal differences are ignored among them. Anyone can teach what he thinks. If they have a doctrinal basis, as the World Council of Churches has, each member may add doctrine or ignore doctrine as he pleases. Even though they may foster and publish biblical studies, they never come to any agreement in doctrine. The only object there is to have one large external body instead of several smaller ones. Another form of unionism is the "Community" or non-denominational church. Everyone in the community or area is welcomed as a member, regardless of what they believe, and are even able to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper together. These forms of unionism are often riddled with coarse modern and liberal error in their teachings. They have turned away from the cardinal doctrines and teach mostly about works. But there are other forms. Many Christians even think that it is alright to agree only on "fundamental" things. Others only agree about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. On such a limited agreement they form groups and co-operate: worship together, commune together, pray together, evangelize together, and exchange pulpits and brotherly greetings. All this sounds very sane and sensible to most people, but it is deceitful, and so it is devilish.
Unionism is dangerous because it thrives on recognition. If we pat each other on the back, call each other "brother" and pray and commune together, then we are nonverbally saying: "You will be saved by believing whatever doctrines you are in fellowship with; and I will be saved by believing what I believe. Your doctrines, even though I do not find them in the Bible and do not agree with them could be considered 'works of darkness' yet I will not say anything. I will not reprove them. You can still do well by believing and teaching them." The fact that one who engages in unionistic practices knows the truth, and is conservative does not help matters, but may, in fact, make it much worse, more diabolical. For then it may not be merely a lie borne of ignorance, but may even become an intentional lie.
Now according to the Bible, we should recognize others as being Christians if they confess their faith in the atoning work of Christ; and we should recognize a church as being Christian if it teaches the Gospel, even though the doctrines of men are taught alongside of the Gospel. But recognizing them as Christian does not mean that we join with them in worship or spiritual work. We rather withhold the hand of fellowship and so "reprove the works of darkness." Eph 5:11. Jesus warned us to "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing" i.e., apparently members of the flock of Christ. "but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Mat 7:17 And St. Paul wrote to Timothy, "If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thyself." 1Ti 6:3ff. And in a similar vein St. Paul wrote to the Romans, "Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." Rom 16:17f.
Now why do you suppose He commands such a thing? Surely it would make more sense for all believers to work together to advance the Kingdom of God, laying aside petty differences would it not? But this is just it. The Kingdom
of God is not built by mixing the Gospel with any opinions of men. It is the Gospel and only the Gospel that saves us as Jesus said, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. And in John 8:31 He says, "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Yes, every teaching of the Bible be it large or small, important or apparently trifling, points us directly to Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. (c.f. Rom 10:10ff)
And so it has always been, that lies have never built God’s Kingdom. Jeremiah spoke of the prophets who "cause My people to err by their lies and by their lightness." Jer 23:23. And in Isaiah 3:12, "They which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." And so here learn only eternal destruction can come from teachings that are not of Christ. (Joh 10:10)
By the grace of God, the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation, in the spirit of C. F. W. Walther, still steadfastly confess the Brief Statement of 1932, including paragraphs 28 and 29 which repudiate unionism. We still steadfastly teach the doctrine of the small catechism of 1943 which explains this in simple fashion, even to children.
Oh may our gracious Lord God grant that we may always so treasure the Gospel of salvation through faith in JESUS CHRIST, without the deeds of the Law, and that we may continue in His Word alone, AMEN. Soli Deo Gloria.
In Christ Jesus, and In His Service,
Rev. Theodore J. Derer
1 "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." [ICR, p. 37]
2 "This document is offered as a study of the Synod’s position on church fellowship (altar and pulpit fellowship) on the basis of the Scriptures and the Confessions, with reference also to church history— including the Synod's own history. It does not discuss the many questions that remain concerning the various ways individual Christians might relate to each other." (emphasis added) [LUC, p. 16]
3 Reports of tolerated unionism include: open communion, acceptability of lodge membership, joint Inter-Faith worship service after 9/11/2001, practice of fellowship with Lutheran World Federation, practice of fellowship with Lutheran World Relief, participation in heterodox conferences and missionary activities [SF], [YS].
4 "While disagreement exists in the Synod regarding the application of its position on church fellowship, the Synod has adopted resolutions over the years affirming and applying its position to special situations (e.g., joint wedding services—1977 Res. 3–25)." [LUC, p. 34]
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." [ICR, p. 37]
2 "This document is offered as a study of the Synod’s position on church fellowship (altar and pulpit fellowship) on the basis of the Scriptures and the Confessions, with reference also to church history— including the Synod's own history. It does not discuss the many questions that remain concerning the various ways individual Christians might relate to each other." (emphasis added) [LUC, p. 16]
3 Reports of tolerated unionism include: open communion, acceptability of lodge membership, joint Inter-Faith worship service after 9/11/2001, practice of fellowship with Lutheran World Federation, practice of fellowship with Lutheran World Relief, participation in heterodox conferences and missionary activities [SF], [YS].
4 "While disagreement exists in the Synod regarding the application of its position on church fellowship, the Synod has adopted resolutions over the years affirming and applying its position to special situations (e.g., joint wedding services—1977 Res. 3–25)." [LUC, p. 34]
Endnotes:
[BrSt] “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod”, 1932, by Franz Pieper.
[CCC] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, Paulist Press.
[CnM] Church and Ministry, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, transl. by J. T. Mueller, 1987.
[ICR] “Inter-Christian Relationships, an Instrument for Study, Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LC-MS, Feb., 1991.
[L&G] The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, C. F. W. Walther, Transl. by W. H. T. Dau, St. Louis, MO, Concordia Publishing House.
[LE] “The Lutheran Ethic: The impact of Religion on Laymen and Clergy,” The Michigan Lutheran, March 29, 1971, in Christian Handbook on Vital Issues, Christian News 1963-1973, p. 74.
[LoD] Young, Jeffrey; “Liberty or Death,” The Faithful Word, Winter 2007, Volume 44, Number 4, p. 3-25.
[LUC] “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship,” CTCR, Feb 2000.
[SC] A Short Explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism, Concordia St. Louis, MO, 1943.
[SF] “Church Fellowship in Story Format,” Steadfastlutherans.org, Apr. 2012, Rev. Paul Rydecki, WELS.
[SS] “What do I Say to a Shameless Sinner?” by Jeffrey A. Young, Spring 2009, The Faithful Word, A Journal of Doctrine and Defense, published by The Lutheran Churches of the Reformation.
[TSC] “The Statement Controversy Up to Date,” 1949, Wallace H. McLaughlin, H. D. Mensing.
[YS] “Getting the History Right on Yankee Stadium,” by David Berger, Librarian at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, posted in Steadfastlutheran.org, Oct. 2011.
[BrSt] “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod”, 1932, by Franz Pieper.
[CCC] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, Paulist Press.
[CnM] Church and Ministry, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, transl. by J. T. Mueller, 1987.
[ICR] “Inter-Christian Relationships, an Instrument for Study, Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the LC-MS, Feb., 1991.
[L&G] The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, C. F. W. Walther, Transl. by W. H. T. Dau, St. Louis, MO, Concordia Publishing House.
[LE] “The Lutheran Ethic: The impact of Religion on Laymen and Clergy,” The Michigan Lutheran, March 29, 1971, in Christian Handbook on Vital Issues, Christian News 1963-1973, p. 74.
[LoD] Young, Jeffrey; “Liberty or Death,” The Faithful Word, Winter 2007, Volume 44, Number 4, p. 3-25.
[LUC] “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship,” CTCR, Feb 2000.
[SC] A Short Explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism, Concordia St. Louis, MO, 1943.
[SF] “Church Fellowship in Story Format,” Steadfastlutherans.org, Apr. 2012, Rev. Paul Rydecki, WELS.
[SS] “What do I Say to a Shameless Sinner?” by Jeffrey A. Young, Spring 2009, The Faithful Word, A Journal of Doctrine and Defense, published by The Lutheran Churches of the Reformation.
[TSC] “The Statement Controversy Up to Date,” 1949, Wallace H. McLaughlin, H. D. Mensing.
[YS] “Getting the History Right on Yankee Stadium,” by David Berger, Librarian at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, posted in Steadfastlutheran.org, Oct. 2011.
