Thursday, December 8, 2011

Have Yourself a Merry Unionistic Christmas

The Arlington United Methodist Church in Arlington, Tennessee announces the community-wide Christmas Day worship service like this:













The Advent Presbyterian Church in Arlington, where the event is being held, has this on their calendar:

















Christ Lutheran Church, a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation, puts it like this:








What's the difference?  Christ Lutheran Church omits the word "worship."  By omitting "worship," does that get them off the hook?  Here's a quote from the Christian Cyclopedia:
...The Concordia Cyclopedia (St. Louis, 1927), p. 774: “Religious unionism consists in joint worship and work of those not united in doctrine. Its essence is an agreement to disagree. In effect, it denies the doctrine of the clearness of Scripture.”
Maybe there's something here that isn't as it seems, because it seems that having a joint service with Methodists and Presbyterians on Christmas Day or any other day is unionism, and even if it's not, I won't be there.  We've all agreed not to do this sort of thing as Article VI of the LCMS Constitution clearly states:
Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:
...b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession...
A blessed Advent to those of you who are non-Lutherans.  I rejoice that you are fellow Christians and I rejoice with you in the birth of our Savior, but all the same will reserve Christ's Christmas Day leitourgia for fellow Lutherans who share our confession.

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions, that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know I'm a broken record on this subject, but the #1 objective of LCMS is "Unity of the True Faith" (Handbook, p. 13). This kind of stuff (1) makes the Unity a fiction, (2) is in violation of Conditions of Membership (Handbook p. 15). The legalities aside, it is the people in the pews who are put at risk by such stuff. Their shepherds, the pastors, have a lot to answer for.

Joe Strieter

Anonymous said...

And another thing: What pastors who promote such joint "worship" do not realize is that they are, in effect, compromising the Gospel, to the detriment of all who attend, and of their own flock. The Gospel you say? Yes--the Presbyterians and Methodists reject the Gospel in the sacraments. Isn't that enough?

Bah! Humbug!

Joe Strieter

jim claybourn said...

In addition to the unionistic problems here, it appears that at least 2 of the 3 churches have decided to NOT have Christmas Day services in their own facility.

How many of those pastors and congregants are those who complain about secular society "taking Christ out of Christmas", yet they have effectively done just that by cancelling their Christmas Day services!

mqll said...

Well hello gentlemen! Glad to have you discussing this. I only wish that I had been invited to be a part of the conversation, rather than having someone point it out to me. That would not have been hard, would it?

We did not intentionally not use the word "worship". It is a worship service, no doubt. So, there is no hiding behind vague language or anything like that. I have no reason to.

The fact of the matter is that Christmas Day (whether on a Sunday or not) is a low attendance day. So, when I was meeting with my fellow pastors, someone threw out the idea to get together. So we are.

Remember: we share unity with these church bodies. This is not some false unity that men make; it is a unity in Christ that comes to us as a gift. We are simply publicly acknowledging the fact that we are all Christians and together we can celebrate the birth of our Savior.

No one is going to think "Oh, they all believe the same thing!" None of us are going to return the next week and begin preaching differently. Remember, normally 52 weeks of the year, we make the statement that there are differences among us. The occasional time to come together to show the unity we have.

Now, as for this being "unionistic" — hardly. Back in the day if I prayed with these pastors people would call that unionism. Unionism comes about when churches merge together, ignoring their differences. This is what occurred in Germany and it is what our constitution speaks against.

But no one involved in this service is pretending to believe anything different from what we hold to. We are simply coming together as fellow Christians to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

I'd be happy to answer any questions on-line or off line. (PastorQ at ShareChristArlington dot net)

Once again, I express my disappointment that I was not told. I have found that many of those opposing me really don't care that much about acting in a Christian manner—they just want to publicly shame and humiliate me. Too bad.

Scott Diekmann said...

You self-identified Rev. Louderback. There is no mention of your name in the blog post or in the page that it links to. If it had been a different LCMS church that had done the same thing, it would be they who were in the post. But they didn't, you did. What you're doing is unionism. Any shame or humiliation you suffer is brought about by your own actions.

Jim Pierce said...

@ Pr. Louderback,

You are giving "unionism" your own definition from which to excuse your actions, so it appears. Can you cite a published definition from a seminary professor or cite from a theological paper form one of our seminaries which supports the definition you are offering?

Scott has provided a definition of "unionism" in the OP from which it looks pretty clear that not only are you blatantly practicing unionism, but you are also violating the LCMS constitution.

I look forward to the citations you provide.

mqll said...

Scott,

I'm sorry— exactly what are you saying? That you are excused from zipping me an e-mail and saying "Hey, I'm going to talk about you" because...because what? You don't put my name? But you put the name of my town and church...and yet you claim that I self-identify?

Really?

It is disappointing to see the lengths that you are rationalizing your actions. I am sorry that it is too much to ask you to notify me. So sorry that is such a burden.

Once again—I have no shame in celebrating the unity that Christ has given to His church.

You however have the shame. Everyone reading this blog will see that you found it very easy to call out my conduct—but you could not bring yourself to inform me of it personally.

Shame.

mqll said...

Jim Pierce,

"Unionism" is not a term used in Scripture. So, yeah, the definition is a bit flexible.

Once again, there would be some in our own Synod who would say that it would be unionism to pray with other Christians—that is not just a position held by the WELS.

On the other hand, the Prussian union refers to when the church was forced together—that is really where the term comes from.

So...you know, I think the term means something in-between. I think prayer with other Christians is fine. I think that if I were having services every Sunday with another church body, that this would clearly be acting as if our differences did not matter.

But once again: are we not united with these Christians? Is there really no opportunity to publicly demonstrate the unity that Christ has given to us?

If the Synod meant to say "No joint worship ever" then why did so many free conferences begin with worship services? The various synods were not in agreement, but they still had a service together. Why? Because they understood that though they were divided and separate, yet at the same time they were united by Christ and His work.

So, we see precedence for my actions in the history of the Synod, correct? You might say "Well, there is a distinction between the Missouri Synod and the Iowa Synod and between you and these other Christians."

And I would say that is some hair splitting going on. The Iowa Synod and the Missouri Synod were not in fellowship; they worshiped together. (shrug)

Is that good enough for you? I think it shows that the Synod did not see every single worship service as a unionistic activity.

Jim Pierce said...

"Unionism" is not a term used in Scripture. So, yeah, the definition is a bit flexible.

Neither is "Trinity" or "Triune God" found in the Scripture. So is our definition for the one true God "a bit flexible?" Not unless we want to fall into heresy!

But once again: are we not united with these Christians? Is there really no opportunity to publicly demonstrate the unity that Christ has given to us?

Uh, no. Actually we are not united with these other Christians. What divides us is our differences on doctrine. You know... things like the Lord's Supper. So, I don't know what you mean by "unity" here.

The various synods were not in agreement, but they still had a service together.

You answer your question with "synod." You aren't holding joint worship services with other Lutheran bodies. Apples... oranges....

Is that good enough for you?

Nope. You are still making it up as you go. You don't have the support of the synod or our seminaries. If I recall one other debate we had, it was extremely important to you to have such support. Now it doesn't appear so important. What changed?

Scott Diekmann said...

Please forgive me for not emailing you Rev. Louderback.

I don't believe the issue of unionism is a gray area in this case, and I think it is a very serious issue. I am emailing District President Lampe, and CCing you as well, requesting that he counsel the two of us on this issue.

Brian Yamabe said...

Pr. Louderback,
You deny "Unionism" based on the way some would define it and point to the Prussian union as being definitive. Then what say you to the charge of syncretism? I read the description of the Syncretistic Controversy and see the same appeal to a "fundamental minimum" that you use. The main problem I see is that you and your congregation have defined the "fundamental minimum" and you haven't even used the marks of the Church from our Confessions, namely the Word rightly preached and the Sacraments properly administered.

I hope you don't take this as piling on, because what I hope you take from this is that there are so many perspectives from which this worship service can be seen as problematic. When you discussed this service with fellow pastors in your circuit, did they not express similar concerns?

mqll said...

Brian Yamabe,

Yes, you are correct that I deny that what I am doing is "unionism" based on the way that some define it. As I said, some define "unionism" as praying with those who believe differently. The term is a bit fluid.

The issue with the Syncretistic Controversy, as I see it — and I'm not an expert — is that Calov desired a permanent state of coming together and ignoring differences.

I'm not keen on that. I have not said "Let's worship together every Sunday! It does not matter what one believes!" I have not said "Ah, our differences are unimportant! Who cares!"

The fact of the matter is for years behind me and most likely for years in front of me, we are not going to have this worship service again.

So, I am one to say that we need to publicly demonstrate the unity that God has given to us.

I'm a bit confused though by what you are saying: are you saying that these churches are not Christian? That because they do not celebrate the sacrament rightly, therefore we cannot point to them as a Christian church? That the Methodist church that is participating is the same as the Mormon church that is not?

Is this your point about the marks of the church?

Don't worry about piling on—I find as much problematic with the opposition.

mqll said...

Scott Diekmann,

You are forgiven.

mqll said...

Jim Pierce,

Neither is "Trinity" or "Triune God" found in the Scripture. So is our definition for the one true God "a bit flexible?" Not unless we want to fall into heresy!

Yes, which is why "Trinity" has a very specific, very definite definition.

While some might disagree with the teaching of the Trinity, not many disagree with WHAT it is teaching.

The same is not true about unionism: as I have pointed out, some define unionism as private prayer with other Christians. Is that how you define it? Is that how our Synod defines it?

What exactly is the definition then? Could you give me the one that you are working with?

Uh, no. Actually we are not united with these other Christians.

Let me push you on what you are saying: you call them "Christians" — but the fact is, if we are not united — if we are not in Christ with them — then they are not Christians and we ought not to accept their baptisms.

Is that what you are saying? That the Presbyterian Church is just like the Mormon church and that is why I ought not to be participating with them?

You answer your question with "synod." You aren't holding joint worship services with other Lutheran bodies.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point; could you re-phrase this for me.

If I recall one other debate we had, it was extremely important to you to have such support. Now it doesn't appear so important. What changed?

I'm a bit unsure of the conversation you refer to — but the fact is that in this situation, the issue is not as cut and dry as you are portraying it. THAT is what irritates me. We have this shifting position of what "unionism" actually is and each generation seems to change what is allowable.

In addition, the Scriptural support of the issue is also entirely fluid, with Synodical documents coming out that simply ignore what was said previously.

I understand that some may disagree with this action. I just think that the Scriptural support of it simply is not there.

And I feel as though the positions argued are really just a soft position of exclusivism: that the LCMS is the only true Christian church and unless one is the LCMS they shall not be saved.

This is what you are saying, isn't it? If these churches are not in Christ, they will not be saved.

Brian Yamabe said...

Pr. Louderback,
I do not question whether there are Christian in these churches. Lutherans have always understood that there are Christians in those church bodies that don't have the marks of the church.

What I'm saying is that you and your congregation have defined the minimum doctrinal agreement with which it is appropriate to worship with another church body. That minimum is outside of what Lutherans recognize as marks of the church, so you have blown through any objective measure of what church bodies you may worship with. What is your measure? What is the minimal doctrinal agreement you must have to combine services? Is it up to every pastor and congregation?

And I'd like to ask again, what did your brother pastors council when you told them about your plans?

Anonymous said...

Are all of the participating churches members of the Willow Creek Association? Would Rick Warren and TCN approve? O proponents of the Church Growth Movement within the LCMS: You reap what you sow. Are you happy with the result? Why or why not?

Please recall that the United Methodist Church is in full communion with the ELCA:

http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Presiding-Bishop/Ecumenical-and-Inter-Religious-Relations/Full-Communion-Partners/United-Methodist-Church.aspx

LCMS congregations that endorse the Church Growth Movement are actually making a slow transition to liberal theology. Pastor Louderback's congregation is one of the first to take the leap. Other congregations are soon to follow.

Jim Pierce said...

Pr. Louderback,

Thank you for your response. I don't have the time, unfortunately, to address each of your points, but will address a couple of them, I hope.

I get what you are trying to say with "unity" in this case, but I don't think you are defining unity as our Lutheran confessors do in the Book of Concord and in particular where unity is agreement in all articles of the faith. What you have done is to sufficiently broaden and loosen the meaning of the term as to be more inclusive. The question then becomes, why stop at the point you have? Why not go the route of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and widen the meaning of the term to include all those who believe in a deity and can accept Jesus in some form?

You ask for a definition of the term "unity" as I am using it, and I already pointed to the OP. I agree with Scott's use of the term and the definitions he provides.

You don't understand my point over "synod?" You are discussing Lutheran of different synods coming together and not those of different denominations gathering together with Lutherans and in particular denominations where they deny the real presence.

Finally, I have no doubt that there are Christians found in other non-Lutheran churches. Why are you even raising that as an issue? Oh, I think I understand why.... You want to sufficiently broaden your definition of "unity" to include all those who claim to be Christian. Is that it?

I think it would be good to review the Solid Declaration, "The Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm" in order to find what all LCMS Pastors unconditionally subscribe to with regard to what it means to be in "unity." Here is the link for your convenience. http://bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php

"7] 5. In the fifth place, we also confess the Articles composed, approved, and received at Smalcald in the large assembly of theologians, in the year 1537, as they were first framed and printed in order to be delivered in the council at Mantua, or wherever it would be held, in the name of the Estates, Electors, and Princes, as an explanation of the above-mentioned Augsburg Confession, wherein by God's grace they were resolved to abide. In them the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession is repeated, and some articles are explained at greater length from God's Word, and, besides, the cause and grounds are indicated, as far as necessary, why we have abandoned the papistical errors and idolatries, and can have no fellowship with them, and also why we know, and can think of, no way for coming to any agreement with the Pope concerning them."

"14] Moreover, since for the preservation of pure doctrine and for thorough, permanent, godly unity in the Church it is necessary, not only that the pure, wholesome doctrine be rightly presented, but also that the opponents who teach otherwise be reproved, 1 Tim. 3 (2 Tim. 3:16); Titus 1:9, — for faithful shepherds, as Luther says, should do both, namely, feed or nourish the lambs and resist the wolves, so that the sheep may flee from strange voices, John 10:12, and may separate the precious from the vile, Jer. 15:19,"

Pr. Louderback, do you agree with our Confession concerning what consists in the grounds for "godly unity in the Church?"

mqll said...

Brian Yamabe,

I understand that Lutherans have understood that there are Christians in other church bodies.

But that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these church bodies are in fact Christian church bodies—and that this is an objective statement. We can point to what they teach, believe and confess and say "This is a Christian church."

Just in the same way that we can point to a non-Christian church (like the Mormons) and say "This is not Christian."

But you are correct: we have said that there is a minimum doctrinal agreement to have a worship service with another body—and that would be the fact that they are Christian.

Here, we are simply demonstrating the unity that Christ has given to us. Christ has established unity in His church—how exactly do we demonstrate what Christ has given to us?

I mean, Scripture is pretty clear about the unity that is given to Christians, is it not?

So, we share unity with those whose baptisms we share. Isn't that a legitimate measure? We accept their baptisms and state that they are a Christian baptism—we would not re-baptize them (which truly does not exist, of course).

Does this make sense? Now, there is a distinction between saying "We are fellow Christians" and "We are in doctrinal agreement." We are not in doctrinal agreement with these Christian church bodies. That is why for most of the year, we don't worship together and we don't commune together.

But should our relationship with these Christian churches be the same as our relationship with non-Christian churches? With those claiming to be Christian? I say no.

My brother pastors had no problem with my plans—indeed they commiserated in my current predicament.

mqll said...

Jim Pierce,

I get what you are trying to say with "unity" in this case, but I don't think you are defining unity as our Lutheran confessors do in the Book of Concord and in particular where unity is agreement in all articles of the faith.

I would disagree with this Jim. i think that the Confessions are pretty clear to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian.

Why not go the route of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and widen the meaning of the term to include all those who believe in a deity and can accept Jesus in some form?

This is entirely my point! In this day and age, how important is it to clearly distinguish between groups that CLAIM to be Christian and are NOT and those who CLAIM to be Christian and are?

Is this not a seriously important distinction to make?

You ask for a definition of the term "unity" as I am using it, and I already pointed to the OP. I agree with Scott's use of the term and the definitions he provides.

Sorry— I thought I asked for the definition of Unionism. That is what I was looking for.

You are discussing Lutheran of different synods coming together and not those of different denominations gathering together with Lutherans and in particular denominations where they deny the real presence.

So...if I were having a worship service with my local ELCA church, you would think that would be ok?

No: you make the claim that our constitution forbids worship services with church bodies we are not in fellowship with.

Back in the day, our church body had worship services with church bodies they were not in fellowship with.

Were they wrong? Perhaps. Or they understood that unionism is not determined by single worship services.

Finally, I have no doubt that there are Christians found in other non-Lutheran churches. Why are you even raising that as an issue?

Once again, that is not my positon. You and Brian Yamabe both misunderstand. I am saying whether we can say that these church bodies are Christian church bodies.

That is the issue.

Once again—I am not using MY definition of unity. I am pointing to what Scripture says about unity.

"For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." (Romans 12:4-5 ESV)

One body in Christ. This is a statement of what Christ brings to His church.

Now, first, it is "Godly unity" not "godly unity". We worship God, not god.

Second, I have been very clear from the outset:

No one is going to think "Oh, they all believe the same thing!" None of us are going to return the next week and begin preaching differently. Remember, normally 52 weeks of the year, we make the statement that there are differences among us.

So, it would be wrong to say "Oh, there is no difference between our church bodies! Let's just ignore this and just get along." No, that is not my position.

So, yes, for us as a church body, we require unity.

But, the Lutherans would have devotions with the Roman Catholics and pray with them during discussions. They treated them as fellow believers, and not as if they were not.

mqll said...

Anonymous,

Are all of the participating churches members of the Willow Creek Association?

No, I doubt any would.

Would Rick Warren and TCN approve?

I don't know. I have not the faintest idea what Rick Warren thinks about when it comes to what defines unionism. And TCN is focused on transforming churches, not on unionism. I don't think it has a "position" other than to support our Synod's position.

Which is what I am doing.

O proponents of the Church Growth Movement within the LCMS: You reap what you sow. Are you happy with the result? Why or why not?

I always opposed church growth myself. But in spite of that, I am happy with the results.

Please recall that the United Methodist Church is in full communion with the ELCA:

Yes, but how pointed it is that the local ELCA church is not a part of this service.

LCMS congregations that endorse the Church Growth Movement are actually making a slow transition to liberal theology. Pastor Louderback's congregation is one of the first to take the leap. Other congregations are soon to follow.

Yes, yes, and back in the day, those saying "We should be able to pray with other Christians" were called liberal as well.

Would that describe you as well, Mr Anonymous?

mqll said...

Once again, if you are following this at home, here are my points:

People have made claims that from the beginning, our church body has said that ANY, ANY worship service with those church bodies that we are not in fellowship with is unionism.

And yet, we see that our church body had occasional worship services with church bodies they were not in fellowship with.

I have tried very clearly to make a distinction between two types of organizations: those who are Christian and those who are not.

This is NOT the same thing as saying "Oh, there are Christians in other church bodies." Shoot, there might be Christians who are attending Mormon worship services. That does not make the Mormon church a Christian church.

No: we need to clearly distinguish between Christian church bodies and non-Christian church bodies.

This cannot happen, in my opinion, if we treat non-Christian and Christian church bodies in the exact same way.

On the other hand, nor does this mean that our differences don't matter. I have never said that. And nor do the guys that the service is with. There are differences between us—and that is why we ordinarily do not worship together. It is why we are not in communion together.

I do not mind people disagreeing with me on this; I just want them to know exactly what the disagreement is.

Jim Pierce said...

Pr. Louderback, do you agree with our Confession, as I quoted above, concerning what consists in the grounds for "godly unity in the Church?" Btw, I am quoting from the Solid Declaration with "godly unity."

Please answer my question.

Scott Diekmann said...

First half of comment:
Once again:

Article VI of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Constitution lays down the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod. Congregations and pastors agree to these conditions when they join the Synod. The second condition declares that members of the Synod must renounce unionism and syncretism of every description. It doesn’t set forth a definition, but it does give examples, one of which forbids “taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession.” This is a clear statement. No matter how you want to define unionism, a part of it, per our Constitution, includes avoiding services with heterodox congregations. United Methodist congregations and Presbyterian congregations are heterodox congregations. There’s nothing unclear about this. This condition has been with us since the beginning of the Synod, and goes all the way back to the Reformation.

There was never a time when Luther walked his parishioners across town so that they could worship with the Sacramentarians, at least some of whom we would call Christians. Luther said this: “Whoever really regards his doctrine, faith, and confession as true, right, and certain cannot remain in the same stall with such as teach or adhere to false doctrine.”

Lutheran piety has always maintained that true unity consists of agreement in doctrine and demonstrated in its fullest expression in the Sacrament of the Altar, not worshiping with those of a heterodox confession, even once.

Scripture parallels physical adultery with spiritual adultery. Union of either type is forbidden. “Occasional” worship with the heterodox is still spiritual adultery. Who among us would say to their wife, “The fact of the matter is for years behind me and most likely for years in front of me, I am not going to have a fling with my neighbor’s wife, so this one time is acceptable.”

Romans 16:17 is a good starting point for a definition of unionism: “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.”

Scott Diekmann said...

Second half of comment:

Sasse does a nice job of getting to the heart of things:

"True ecumeny, which sees the one church of Christ wherever the means of grace are yet preserved—through which the Lord calls to His church—even beyond the boundaries of one’s own ecclesiology, stands opposed to false ecumeny, which treats Christians of all denominations as brothers in faith. This false ecumeny tries to make visible and tangible that which we humans cannot see and touch, the church as the people of God, as the Body of Christ, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This false ecumeny changes the 'article of faith' about the church into an 'article of sight.' It understands the unity of the church, which only the Holy Spirit can create and maintain, as something which we humans can produce. And it tries to produce this unity, in that it works to realize the one faith, the one baptism, the one sacrament of the altar as a compromise of various forms of faith, various interpretations of baptism, and various understandings of holy communion. In so far as it does that, this false ecumeny overlooks [the fact] that the various understandings of the means of grace are not only different possibilities of understanding the truth, but rather that soul-murdering errors and church-destroying heresy also hide among them. True ecumeny sees this. Therefore, it is able to recognize the true unity of the church only there, where it recognizes the one correct faith, the one correct baptism, the one communion of the Lord Christ. True ecumeny asks, therefore, not first about unity, but rather about truth. It knows that where the true church is, there, and there alone, is also the one church. In this sense it understands the high priestly prayer of the Lord, too, in which the 'that they may all be one' is linked inseparably with 'sanctify them in Your truth; Your Word is the truth' (John 17:17, 21)."

Article VI Conditions of Membership
Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following:
1. Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II.
2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:
a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church;
b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession;
c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.

Judy said...

Would having the "service" at the Lutheran Church change any of this discussion? Would all the same arguments hold true?

Scott Diekmann said...

Judy, having the service at a Lutheran Church would make no difference. It would still be unionism. Worshiping with heterodox denominations implies a false unity.

Here are a few quotes from Lutheran theologians on the topic:

Dr. Franz Pieper:

We dare not allow any other concept of unity to arise among us than the unity of faith which is in harmony with Scripture, the agreement in all articles of Christian doctrine.

Wilhelm Loehe:

Let the great ‘It is sufficient’ with which the Augsburg Confession insists upon unity in doctrine and sacrament be our war cry, our watchword, our banner. “

Charles Porterfield Krauth:

When the Lutheran Church acts in the spirit of the current denominationalism it abandons its own spirit. It is a house divided against itself. Some even then will stand firm, and with the choosing of new gods on the part of others there will be war in the gates. No seeming success could compensate our church for the forsaking of principles which gave her her being, for the loss of internal peace, for the destruction of her proper dignity, for the lack of self-respect which would follow it. The Lutheran Church can never have real moral dignity, real self-respect, a real claim on the reverence and loyalty of its children while it allows the fear of the denominations around it, or the desire of their approval, in any respect to shape its principles or control its actions. It is a fatal thing to ask not, What is right? What is consistent? but, What will be thought of us? How will the sectarian and secular papers talk about us? How will our neighbors of the different communions regard this or that course? Better to die than to prolong a miserable life by such compromise of all that gives life its value.

Johann Gerhard:

Not just any unity of faith and doctrine is a mark of the Church, but only the unity of true faith and doctrine, that is, of prophetic and apostolic doctrine, for that alone is of immovable and perpetual truth. Therefore the unity of faith that is a mark of the Church must be based on one foundation of doctrine: the apostolic doctrine. Accordingly, the Church is said to be “built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles” (Eph. 2:20). It is said about the heavenly Jerusalem that “its wall has twelve foundations and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”( Rev. 21:14). Accordingly, in Zech. 8:19 “truth and peace” are joined. In fact, truth is set ahead of peace so that we may understand that God approves of only that peace, concord, and unity which enjoys the foundation and bond of truth. John 8:31: “If you remain in My Word, you are truly My disciples.” John 17:21: “That they may be one in Us.”

Scott Diekmann said...

Judy, in my last comment, that's assuming it's the exact same service, just moved to a Lutheran church. If you mean that the service is actually the Divine Service, the answer would be different, but you wouldn't invite entire non-Lutheran congregations to your service, because it would imply a unity that isn't there, and why would they come? They don't agree with our theology.

jim_claybourn said...

Are there any other LCMS churches in the area that could have been consulted and joined in a Christmas Day service, rather than uniting with other denominations for a worship service??

Scott Diekmann said...

The following quote is taken from the September 18, 1917 edition of The Lutheran Witness. It points out that the LCMS would have no joint worship services with other Lutheran synods on the Reformation Jubilee, because there was no unity in doctrine. Obviously, this refusal to hold joint worship services with other Lutheran synods would also apply to other non-Lutheran denominations:

Joint Reformation Celebrations. — Many of our congregations will take part in joint celebrations of the Jubilee. The churches of the Synodical Conference in many centers of population will gather in imposing union services. But there will be no participation of our churches in general Lutheran or Protestant gatherings.
The reason for this position of our Synod has been stated before, but in view of the approaching celebration demands restatement.
We hold it to be self-evident truth that, where there is no unity of faith, there ought to be no unity of worship. If the texts of Scripture which forbid unionism (for example, Rom. 16, 17; 1 Tim. 6, 3 ff.) do not apply here, they are devoid of meaning.
We hold it to be a truth that may be readily verified by investigation that there are real differences in doctrine between the synods composing the Synodical Conference on the one hand and, for instance, the Ohio Synod, the Iowa Synod, the General Synod, the General Council, and the United Synod of the South, on the other. [The predestinarian controversy is mentioned.]
...There are other differences, as, for instance, on the Sabbath question and other adiaphora (liquor question, etc.). The evolution doctrine is taught in some church-papers. For a full discussion of these differences and others read Prof. Bente’s book: Was steht der Vereinigung der lutherischen Synoden Amerikas im Wege? which contains a sufficient array of facts to convince the Christian reader that there are very real and effectual bars to Lutheran union. But where there is no unity, there can be no joining worship nor joint celebrations of the Jubilee.
The question is not: What do individual Christians in these bodies believe? but this: What is the public and official stand of these synods in matters of Christian doctrine? We believe that there are true Christians in all these Churches, because the essentials of the Gospel are still preached. Even so there are, no doubt, children of God in the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, even in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic Churches. But all these Christians are permitting men who have departed in some point from the Gospel of Christ to determine the public and official doctrine of their bodies. These Christians are misled. They follow blind leaders. We may make every allowance for human weakness, and thus, in a measure, condone their fault. We recognize the stress of circumstances. But we cannot do one thing: we cannot enter into relations of fellowship with them so long a they do not obey the word of Jesus and proclaim their undivided adherence to His teachings.
These words are not written for the purpose of instructing our own people, to whom all these statements are commonplaces, but for the benefit of the outsider. No Missouri Synod Lutheran rejoices in the fact of division. But he recognizes the fact. And by dispassionately exhibiting this fact, we appeal to the conscience of all good Christians who are now separated from us because of affiliation with men who teach falsely, and would have them remove the offense from their midst in order that there may be Lutheran unity throughout the length and breadth of the land.
There is no other possibility of the removal of division except by speaking plainly to Christians concerning the error which they support by their membership. In the performance of this duty we must not grow negligent, not even in this year of Jubilee.

Scott Diekmann said...

From the 1974 CTCR document “A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism”:

"Pastors will not participate in joint worship services with pastors of denominations with which the Synod has not established fellowship relations."

Jim Pierce said...

Thank for the good sources, Scott. The quote from the CTCR document is especially clear.

So where is Pr. Louderback getting this idea that what he is doing is OK with the synod?

Pr. Louderback, if you are still reading, maybe you could address the citations provided and also answer my earlier question over whether or not you agree with the citations from the Solid Declaration?

mqll said...

Of course I am reading Jim Pierce!

But I look in vain for any statement from you saying that these church bodies are indeed Christian church bodies and not just religious bodies that have Christians located in them.

Anyway, yes, I agree completely with the Solid Declaration. There is a reason why my congregation does not regularly worship with other denominations. There is a reason why we do not do join mission work. There is a reason why we do not plant churches together.

So, yes, i agree with it completely. In fact, anyone looking at my church would see clearly that we are separated from other churches.

My issue is, how do we demonstrate the unity that we have in Christ?

So I am saying that the occasional service does not rise to the level of unionism. It instead allows for the demonstration of the unity that we have been given.

Now, you know, you might not agree and you might point to various teachings — but #1, we have examples of those in the LCMS worshiping with those not in fellowship with them and #2, there is nothing in Scripture that spells this out either.

I certainly know that some oppose this—some oppose our praying with other Christians as well. There is a wide variety of different opinions on fellowship in our Synod.

I am not doing anything wrong.

mqll said...

Jim Claybourn,

You ask about other churches in the area — not really. It would not be a long drive or anything, but nothing in our Arlington community.

Jim Pierce said...

Pr. Louderback,

You write, "Anyway, yes, I agree completely with the Solid Declaration. There is a reason why my congregation does not regularly worship with other denominations. There is a reason why we do not do join mission work. There is a reason why we do not plant churches together."

If I am reading you correctly, you "agree completely" but you have redefined words such that they means something quite different. For instance, what do you think the following from the Solid Declaration means? "...the cause and grounds are indicated, as far as necessary, why we have abandoned the papistical errors and idolatries, and can have no fellowship with them,...." What does "and can have no fellowship with them" mean? Certainly holding a joint worship service is fellowship? Ah, but you will modify "fellowship" with an adjective such as "regular" and then turn around and claim that you do not have "regular fellowship" with those of different denominations the LCMS is not in fellowship with.

Yes, Pr. Louderback, you are doing something wrong. You are simply rationalizing it.

Scott Diekmann said...

From the 2001 CTCR document "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship":

"The promise not to participate in worship services with those not in church fellowship with the LCMS applies particularly to pastors, who are the official representatives of both their
congregations and the LCMS. Their solemn commitment to the scriptural and confessional
position of the LCMS must be their guide and will supersede personal feelings or preferences.
Trust among LCMS pastors, congregations, and leaders allows everyone to carry out their
commitment to fellowship practices to which they have mutually agreed. This trust is
undermined when these commitments, as they are set forth in the official documents of the
LCMS, are openly violated. Public knowledge of such violations strains relationships and makes
reasoned discourse of real issues difficult. This in turn hinders pastors from exercising discretion
in unclear situations."

Jim Pierce said...

Pr. Louderback,

I had to take a phone call and wasn't able to address your following point in my above response. You write, "But I look in vain for any statement from you saying that these church bodies are indeed Christian church bodies and not just religious bodies that have Christians located in them."

And you will continue to "look in vain" because you are raising a red herring and I reject your premise. The basis of fellowship with any other church body has been, and continues to be, doctrinal unity. Does the PCA, which Advent Presbyterian Church belongs to, confess all articles of faith as we do in the Augsburg Confession? No. Among other things, the PCA rejects the truth that Christ's body and blood are truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.

You are inadvertently minimizing the truth of the Gospel with your actions which tell your congregation that the PCA is OK for LCMS Lutherans to worship with in a joint service and that our doctrinal differences really don't matter. So what we have here, Pr. Louderback, is you taking it upon yourself to bring your congregation into a unionistic worship service with those who reject what we confess as the truth of the Holy Scriptures. What you are doing is sinful and damaging to those who are under your care as their pastor.

You may have the last word, since I don't have the time to continue this.

Brian Yamabe said...

Pr. Louderback,
I think I might have started the discussion down the path of whether these church bodies are Christian, so I will put a stake in and say they are heterodox Christian church bodies by confession. By this definition, we have doctrinal differences with which prohibit fellowship. I'm not sure how defining this term is persuasive to your argument.

I think the big flag for me is your statement, “My issue is, how do we demonstrate the unity that we have in Christ? ” Are you saying the only way to show unity is via the divine service? A service project or Christmas music program couldn't display unity as well? The problem I have with the solution you've chosen is that it displays unity beyond faith in Christ. It display unity in the theology of worship at a minimum.

Deirdre said...

Pastor:
What concerns me is the idea you are giving to your congregation and others that worship can be defined as focusing on similarities. Christmas often brings those to church who seldom attend service. This combined worship service is being offered as a replacement for your regularly scheduled service. Therefore, this is one of the best opportunities to preach as you should about law and gospel and NOT imply that simply acknowledging Christ was born is good enough for the holidays.

What do you think congregants and their families and friends will assume because of this? Why abuse your pastoral calling to pat them on the back, wink, and hope they don't bring up this whole confusing unionism thing? You could have sponsored an afternoon hymn sing instead.

mqll said...

Jim Pierce,

Well, we can argue all day about who is understanding or misinterpreting the words — all I can do is point to actions.

Even during those times, the Lutherans and Roman Catholics would have devotions together and pray together before discussions. So, I don't think the "no fellowship" is quite as iron clad as you want it to be.

And that is part of my issue: you just want this to be black and white, cut and dry, neat and clean. And it is not; fellowship is always a bit tricky.

This is true with communion fellowship as well, isn't it? I mean, our postion on communion fellowship is not simply some black and white issue—if you have a LCMS card, you commune; if not you don't.

No, our position has always allowed for pastoral discretion; now you can say that this is sometimes abused, sure: but the point remains. Our position on communion is not black and white.

Nor is our position on church fellowship — it is why I have all of these example of behavior.

And you will continue to "look in vain" because you are raising a red herring and I reject your premise.

I disagree. I find it to be entirely pertinent to the discussion. It is attitudes such as your own that drive me to do this in the first place. People in our church body are advancing a position that is a soft-exclusivism. And that is not right.

So, you can claim the red herring — but as I said, I see your attitude and I think "This is why we must confess the truth!"

Does the PCA, which Advent Presbyterian Church belongs to...

Advent does not belong to the PCA, btw. It is currently independent.

But your point is the same either way.

You are inadvertently minimizing the truth of the Gospel with your actions which tell your congregation that the PCA is OK for LCMS Lutherans to worship with in a joint service and that our doctrinal differences really don't matter.

Once again, I simply disagree with this assessment. For example, suppose I were to pray with the pastor of this church. Would that too be a statement that our doctrinal differences really don't matter?

I don't think so. Our Synod doesn't think so.

So, I would highly doubt that a single worship service would indicate the degree of unity that you assign to it.

I do think that people would see that we are united in some areas — and indeed we are, since we are all Christian churches.

So, I reject your statement in the same way that I would reject someone saying "By praying with other Christians, you are saying that doctrinal differences don't matter."

But, on the other hand, if I were taking communion with these churches, then you would have more of a leg to stand on in saying I am ignoring doctrinal differences. That certainly would be the case then.

As it is, I feel as though this action is the proper way to show the unity that we share as Christians, while at the same time displaying the differences that divide us.

mqll said...

Brian Yamabe,

I think I might have started the discussion down the path of whether these church bodies are Christian, so I will put a stake in and say they are heterodox Christian church bodies by confession. By this definition, we have doctrinal differences with which prohibit fellowship. I'm not sure how defining this term is persuasive to your argument.

Couple things: first, I agree completely with your definition. If nothing else, we'll have that point of agreement.

Second, the term "fellowship" can be used in two ways, depending on what eyes you are looking through: whether the eyes of God or the eyes of men.

In the eyes of God, we are in fellowship with these Christians. There is nothing that we can do, teach, believe, etc that would "prohibit" this fellowship. In the eyes of God, we are all perfect in our beliefs and actions, because God sees us through Christ and His death and resurrection.

"Fellowship" in this instance, is not something that we do as Christians — it is a gift that is given to us.

Now, at the same time, because of sin and rebellion, we as human beings need to teach the truth in the midst of lies. In this way, we need to proclaim that there is a distinction between Christian and non-Christian; and also that there is a distinction between truth and falsehood—between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

This is the fellowship that we demonstrate.

I think it is simply going beyond what Scripture teaches to say that unless there is doctrinal unity, we cannot worship together. I don't see it. I see evidence that we can't commune with those who believe differently. But not to pray together? (as some teach) No. Not to worship together regularly and ignore differences?

Not to worship together ever? Where is this exactly?

So that is how your statement is pertinent to my argument — it is not persuasive necessarily.

It is more persuasive when someone such as Jim Pierce refuses to state what you have — then this opens up the idea that the reason we don't worship with Mormons and Baptists is because they are not Christian churches (although Christians might be found in both bodies, because of error).

Are you saying the only way to show unity is via the divine service?

No, it is not. I do think though that it is a good and appropriate way—certainly in this situation. I don't see the distinction between this and the Christmas music program — which would doubtless have prayer, someone speaking words of the real meaning of Christmas, and singing.

mqll said...

Deirdre,

Christmas often brings those to church who seldom attend service.

I'm sorry Deirdre, but this simply does not ring true with me. I have, in my years of doing Christmas day services, never seen a visitor. Other than my parents.

Do not confuse this with Christmas Eve—indeed, if this were a Christmas Eve worship service, I would think that there would be a better argument that what I was doing was wrong.

But Christmas Day? Small attendance. No visitors.

What do you think congregants and their families and friends will assume because of this?

I hope that they would assume that these religious bodies are Christian churches; and though we have our differences that divide us and prohibit our joining together in worship regularly, we can sometimes come together to worship our Savior, and display the unity that we have as Christians.

Why abuse your pastoral calling to pat them on the back, wink, and hope they don't bring up this whole confusing unionism thing?

Well, once again, the way I see things, there are those in our church body who are advancing false positions on fellowship and what it means to be Christian — we have people pushing the position that the only Christian church on earth is the LCMS. And this is not right.

So, I see this as a confession of truth.

You could have sponsored an afternoon hymn sing instead.

I'm curious as to what exactly the distinction is between a hymn sing and a worship service? Exactly what makes one acceptable and the other one not?

For you, this would be fine—but you understand that some would object to this and call it "unionism"? Right? That is sorta my point with all of this as well.

mqll said...

Scott Diekmann,

I am sorry Scott—you have taken great time to bring these passages to my attention and I will address them.

Please do not think I am ignoring you—I'm obviously wrapping up my discussion with Jim Pierce and I'll be able to answer the objections that you bring up.

I. M. Abaldy II said...

mqll wrote:
"Remember: we share unity with these church bodies. This is not some false unity that men make; it is a unity in Christ that comes to us as a gift. We are simply publicly acknowledging the fact that we are all Christians and together we can celebrate the birth of our Savior."

But what Savior and how does He come to us?

The Savior who comes to us in His gift of Baptism and thereby saves us?

The Savior who comes to us in His gift of the Office of the Holy Ministry and thereby forgives our sins?

The Savior who comes to us in His gift of the Sacrament of the Altar and thereby gives us His very body and blood?

How do we demonstarate true unity in Christ by unionism in worship with those our Confessions reject and condemn as parting from Christ in what they teach and practice, and who themselves reject and condemn the very gifts by which He comes to us--and thus reject and condmen us and Him as well?

You are trying to mixing oil and water, the invisible church known only to God with the visible church on earth. The unity of which you speak will only be revealed on the Last Day.

For now, our unity is to be looked for and found in preaching, teaching, and practicing only the faith once delivered to us in all its articles. Such is the concord, i.e. unity to which we subscribe in The Lutheran Confessions.

mqll said...

IM Abaldy,

There is only one Savior.

I don't use the terms "visible" and "invisible" when it comes to the church — I find them to be confusing and inaccurate. I rather prefer Luther's vocables of "hidden" and "revealed".

So, these Churches are "revealed" churches because of their teaching. They do not reject and condemn Christ. The unity we have is something that is indeed demonstrated now.

Of course, ultimately, I cannot see in other's hearts and so I can't know if Bob or Jane are hypocrites or not— I can only judge them on their confession. And, I point to Brian Yamabe's words — they are heterodox Christians.

So, our unity is not merely found in the preaching of all the articles—otherwise, why accept their baptisms?

mqll said...

So: after conversation with my District President I am not going to participate in the worship service.

I do not want untoward attention drawn to my district. I do not want to be a lightning rod and have accusations lobbed against what we are trying to do. I don't want TCN dragged in the mud because of what I am doing.

So, I am not going to do it.

I know doubtless that makes some of you happy; but ultimately in the spirit of Advent, I call upon you to examine Scripture and your teachings and to repent where they are not in line with each other. (as certainly I have previously) We trust and believe that the Holy Spirt will guide us into truth. So that is my prayer for you.

I appreciate the conversations and would be happy to answer any additional questions.

Jim Pierce said...

It is too bad you aren't repentant Pr. Louderback. However, I am rejoicing for those you care for as their pastor that you DP talked you out of going forward with your unionistic worship service.

Scott Diekmann said...

I just came across this quote in Logia 11-4, p. 62:

Community Christmas
[Query] Is it unionistic practice for one of our Lutheran
churches to take part in a community Christmas-tree program
together with the other churches of that city? One pastor informs
me that only the old-time Christmas carols such as “Silent
Night,” are to be sung at the occasion. He adds that no prayer is
to be spoken, with the exception of the Lord’s Prayer if requested.
The press announcement reads: “All the churches of the
town, Lutheran, Catholic,Methodist, Christian, Baptist, and
Presbyterian, are participating.”
[Reply] Participation in any community Christmas service
should be avoided by our pastors and congregations. Either the
festival is stripped of religious significance, and then the celebration
is surely an abomination to our Lord—it is the kind in
which Herod and the Jewish elders could have joined—or it is
a religious celebration with hymns, prayers, etc., and participation
then is certainly unionistic.
The offense which is given consists in a false appearance of
spiritual union. Unless we accept the principle that joint prayer
and worship are conditioned upon unity of religious belief, we
have no longer a compass to steer by.We have then lost every
claim upon our membership except that of “loyalty” or tradition—
a very poor claim, as the Lutheran Church found out in
1820, when it was about dead. The thing must work utter confusion
in the minds of the common people whose minds are logical
enough to ask the question, If on Christmas night, then why
not on Christmas Day or any Sunday?