Vol. XSSIII Spring, 1969 0 . 1
TIIE SPRINGFIELDER is published quarterly by the faculty of Con-
cordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois, of the Lutheran
Church - Ifissouri Synod.
EDITORI-II> COZILITT TEE
FETCH . HEIZITZEX, Editor
f i a ~ 3 r o x ~ F. SCRSCRG, Book Re17iet47 Editor
I l . 2 ~ 1 1 ) P . (c-IEE. ;1ssociate Editor
~ I - A R K J. S I F EGE, ,4 zwciate Editor
I ' ~ : L S I I ) E ~ T J . -4. 0. PEEL S , ex ojficio
RESPONSES TO "\VHzlT COAIIZJ I KtLFST TO I'HF 'SOI,;l
GR-4TI:l' IS THE LL1 HFR-A?; CON FESSIOXS
1s i-OLJrl:S''
R I C ~ I A E D 1. SCHLI TZ 3
ERIC:H 13. I ~ ~ I X T Z E A 7 I
Indc.ucd it. INDEX TO RELIGIOUS PERIODICAL ITERATURE, published b y the
Americu?~ Tlreologicul I.1bmr-y Association, 3lcCormick Semir~al? Libr-ni?,
Clricago, :'11not$.
Clergy changcs of ,tddress reported to Concordia Publishing House, St, Louis,
Missouri, will also cover mailing change of The Syi-ingfielder. Othcr changes
of address shollld he sent to the Business Manager of The Springfielde~, Con-
cordia The~logic~il St~minary, Springfield, Illinois 62702.
Address conlmunications to the Editor, Erich H. Heintzen, Concorctia Theo
logical Seminary, Springfield, IIIinois 62'702.
"The Doctrine of The Church" and
The Unity of American Lutheranism
JAMES WEIS
L UTHERAN SYNODS in the United States, in spite of divisions and disagreements between them, have been merging with one
another in recent decades at such a rate that today about ninety-five
percent of the Lutherans in the United States belong to either T h e
Lutheran Church in America, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
or T h e American Lutheran Church.
T o overcome to some extent this remaining disunity, T h e
American Lutheran Church and The 1,utlieran Church-Alissouri
Synod i n 1964 designated representatives to discuss with one another
a number of niajor areas of doctrine dealt with in the Lutheran Con-
fessions.
T h e essay, "The 1)octrinc of the C;hurch in the Lutheran Con-
fessions," developed one of thcsc themes. This essay lays great
stress on the scbventh article of the r\ugshurg Confessioi~. It reflects
the agrcenient that exists bct\vccn thcsc t\vo church bodies on tlic
doctrine of tlic church. Linfortirnatclv it 1eai.e~ unclear the impli-
cations of thc cloctrinc of the cliurcl; for the. \.isible or empirical
unit! of Lutheran church hoclics in thc Unitcd Statcs at the present
day. T h e cssa\ docs riot come to grips with thc pro11lc.m of defining
thc basis for maintaining tlisunit\. in tlic \.isil~lcl church, the ecclesia
lute dictu uui~-ersnlis. I t clocs no't c'sl,licitl!; atldrcss itself to tlie re-
lationship bCt\\.ccn tlic cloctrinc of' tlic cliurcli and thc contcniporary
phenomenon of church hodics. I t ~ n t h c r c.nn rno\lc from thc coni-
nicnt, "r\n! te;lc1iing t1i;it is colltl-ar!. to tlic Gos~)c~l i~iiprlirs the true
uiiitv of tlw ch~rrch ," to thc commcnt, "Churches e~~deavoring to
establish or l>rcscr\-c unit). in the ch~rrcli need carnestIy to rake
these questions 1 about diffcrcnccs in cloctrinc and practice] ," (p.
14) \vitliout atlc.cjuatol! distinguishing bc.t\\ccn tlic various ways in
\vhich the term "churc~ii" is hc.i~lg usccl and nithout coming to grips
\\it11 the q i ~ ~ s t i o n : \\'hat is ncccssilr!, for the unity of the visible
chur-ell?
The presiclcnts of thc districts of The Lutheran Church-klis-
souri Svnod \~~rcstIcd \vith this latter q~rcstion recently in connec-
tion th their deli ber;ttions concerning :r recornmcndation for the
esta hlishment of pulpit and altar felIo~~~sli ip bct\vcen the hlissouri
Synod and Thc American l,utl~cran Church. Thcy resolved, though
not unanimorrsl!., to rcconiniend "That tlie Svnod herewith fornially
declare itself to bc in altar and 1,ulpit follo\vship \vith The American
Lutheran Church." The rcconinicntlatio~~ is explained in part in
the folio117ing clarrses:
T h e Synod recognizes that some clivcrsitics continue to exist,
and efforts to work toward a r~nificd evangelical position and
practice on the basis of thc \Vord of Gml have been fruit-
ful; . . .
Of The Church 3 5
It is the Synod's conviction that these diversities are not divi-
sive of fellowship and that they are a matter primarily of pas-
toral care; . . .
This brief paper addresses itself to the theological basis for
these two potentially controversial statements against the background
of the essay, "The Doctrine of the Church in the Lutheran Con-
fcssions."
The definition of the church and its oneness which Philip
Melanchthon developed in the seventh and eighth articles of the
Augsburg Confcssioll and the Apology laid stress neithcr on the
historical episcopate nor on obedience to the Bishop of Rome, hut
rather on the Gospel and the sacraments as the determinative and
defining marks of t l ~ c hurch. Ailelanchthon was nevertheless aware
of the possibility that such a definition could be misunderstood. In
the Apology, therefore, he took great pains to make clear that he
was "not dreaming about some Platonic republic," but rather that he
believed "that this church actually exists, made up of true believers
and righteous men scattcred throughout the world." (Ap. VII,
VIII, 20)
This church, R4elanchthon was quick to point out, includes
"many weak people in it who build on this foundation perishing
structures of stubble, that is, unprofitable opinions. But because
they do not overthrow the foundation, thcsc are forgiven them or
even corrected. The writings of the holy Fathers show that even
thcy sometimes build stubble on thc foundation but that this did not
overthrow their faith." (Ap. VII, VIII, 20, 21) R1lelanchthon
went on to distinguish the "unprofitablc opinions" of the fathers
from the opinions maintained by the Ko~llan Catholic theologians
who condemned "our doctrine that forgiveness of sins is received by
faith" and who removed "Christ as the foundation." (Ap. VII, YIII,
21)
These remarks support hlclanchthon's contention in the LL\~gs-
burg Confession that the Reformers sincerely condemned the Dona-
tists. Absolute perfection in the church militant was not asserted
by h3elanchthon - even for those who werc followers of Martin
Luther. Rather Alelanchthon recognized that the practice or dis-
cipline of theology-even the act of confessing one's faith-fell
into the realm of the Christian's life of sanctification. Like all of
life, theology and dogmatic coilfessions of faith partake in the in-
completeness and imperfection which are characteristic of aH that
is done by those who are members of Christ's cht~rch militant.
Unfortunately, it is not all clear in what way these confessional
statements about the church and about the dogma confessed by
Christians in the church are relevant to a definition of the unity of
the visible church as it manifests itself in various ways in the last
third of the twentieth century. To put the question quite simply:
In what way does a church body partake of the nature of the church? --
It is quite clear that in the LTna Sancta all true Christians are
united by virtue of their common saving faith (fides pis). It is, ~ O W -
ever, not clear what it is that unites the members of Christian church
bodies or denominations. At first glance it might seem that menl-
bers of the same church body are united with one another on the
basis of their comlnon confession of faith (fides qzraej. Yet it is self-
evident that such unity in this life will never be perfect. The real
problem remains: \Vhat separates the members of one church body
from the members of another church bodv? \Vhat is the basis for
refusing fully the hand of fellowship to those whom we recognize
to be one with us in Christ-though at odds with us in one or lllore
areas of Christian teaching?
If'hatcvcr else may be said, the \\lords of Paul about the unity
of the church cannot be ignored:
For as in one body n.e haw many members, and all the mem-
bers do not l l a \ ~ ' the same function, so we, though many, are
onc body in Christ, and individually nlcrnbcrs one of another.
]:om. 13,:4-5. (Cf. I Cor. 12:12-15; Eph. 4:4-6, 15-16.)
There arc, on the. other hand, complementing these references
to the unity of the l>ody of Christ, numerous Bil~lical arlinonitions to
prescrvc the 1>~1rit! of tllc cI1urch's teaching.
Jcsus thcn si~icl to the. Je\\s \\ho had beliclccl in Him, "If you
cot~tinuc in mj \\ ord, !ou are truf! my clisciples, a ~ l d you will
k ~ ~ o \ v thc truth, a11d tllc' t~-utll \till nlnkc )iou free." john 8:
3 1-32. (C'f. Alatt. 28 : 19-30.)
It is hcll,ful to rcn~clnber, ho\\t.\cr, that many other passages cited
in support of separation in the i.isil>le c l~urch for the sake of the
maintcnancc of pure doctrine, such as Romans 16: 17, evidently
refer to the tliscipline and exclusion from the church of individuals
rather than of cl~~trches. I t should also be r~oted that Paul's atlmoni-
tion to a\loicl "those who cause divisions and oEcnses" probably re-
fers, as the Constitution of the Alissouri Synotl suggests, to schis-
matice rather than heretics.
The problem remains: \\?hat kind of separation should exist
in thc church militi3nt bct~\~cc~n church bodics-whatever they are-
I>ecausc of differences over doctrine?
Paul's aclmonitions in the last chapters of Eomans to patience
and longsuffering with those \rho are \leak it7 the faith should cer-
tainly be consitlc~red in connection with any discussion of the re-
lationship bet\\-ccn disunity in doctrine and the disunity of the
chnrch. It is certainly legitimate to ask: How can it be determined
whether disunity in doctrine reflccts the presence of one who is
wcak in the faith or one who is a false prophet or teacher?
As for the man who is weak in faith, n~elcome him, but not
for disputes over opinions. . . . IVhy do you pass judgment on
your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat
of God. . . . I r t us then pursue what makes for peace and for
Of The Clzurch 3 7
mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the
work of God. Rorn. 14: 1, 10, 19-20. (Cf. Rom. 15 : 1-6.)
Perhaps mcn must make judgments concerning what the stand-
ards of purity of doctrine shall be and what the criteria for deter-
mining 'the degree of purity shall be. It may be a valid venture for a
church body to engage in such activity. Indeed, in view of the fact
that church bodies-separated froin one another-do exist, it is
difficult to imagine how a Lutheran church body in the United States
in the last third of the twentieth century could avoid making such
judgrnen ts.
Lutherans in America have actually been tt-restling with this
problem ever since the first Lutheran congregation in North America
found its precarious way into existence o~ler three hundred years ago.
First in congregations, later in synods, and finally in a general synod,
Lutherans sought-always without success, however-an institu-
tional basis for unity with one another. They were united by a
comnlon name, common cultural origins, and common traditions.
They were separated, however, by differcnccs in language and, per-
haps most important of all, different ways of looking at the Lutheran
Confessions.
By the time the Civil \\'ar broke out fragmentation of American
Lutheranism was further augmented by the arrival of hundreds of
thousands of conservative Lutheran immigrants from Europe, who
established separate new synods in the American midwest. For a
time these new immigrants, often called "Old Lutherans," attempted
to unite the Lutheran synods of America on the basis of a common
acceptance of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. This became the
halln~ark of doctrinal unity. On this basis some of these synods in
1867 did cstablish the General Council. The guiding spirit of this
new body was Charles Porterfield Krauth.
A few years later in 1872 a number of other "Old Lutheran"
groups, among then1 the Missouri, Ohio, Norwegian, and \\Tisconsin
Synods, united to organize the Synodical Conference.
In the Synodical Conference for the first time a new basis uras
defined for the unity of American Lutheran synods. In a series of
theses on church fcllo~vsl~ip, Dr. \Yilliam Sihler enunciated the con-
fessional principle of the Synodical Conference. Theses four through
seven explicitly state that unity in doctrine and practice are neces-
sary prerequisites for the unity of the visible church.
THESIS 1V There is no such thing as an orthodox Lutheran
congregation or church body that does not agree to the doc-
trinal and antithetical statements of the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession in their clear and evident sense.
THESIS V Anyone who denies necessary, logically deduced
conclusions derived from this confession, is also not a genuine
member of the Lutheran Church, even though he may still
improyerly cling to the name of Lutheran.
THESIS VI I t necessarily follows from the nature of this
orthodox confession that ecclesiastical practice must be in ac-
cord with it. . . .
THESIS VII From this necessary connection between confes-
sion and practice, it necessarily follonrs that a Lutheran synod
whose practice is in accord with its ecclesiastical confession
will not enter into union or fellowship with a synod whose
practice contradicts its confession, even though it may bear the
name of Lutheran. (Cf. Lewis Spitz, Life in TIITO Worlds, pp.
145 ff .)
T h e assertions of these theses contradicted, to some extent,
statements made a f en years earlier in a letter by Dr. C. F. IY. \Val-
ther. JJ7ith reference tb a discussion of the admission to congrega-
- gations and the discipline of lodge me~nbers, he explicitly asserted
that unit! in doctrine, not in cccIcsiastica1 practice, was the necessary
prercquisitc for unity in the I isible church.
. . . l la! not rigidit\# in this IICI-II;I~S ~'asilv lead to the h a -
I)aptist conccpt of t11.c ncccssarv purit!- of thc \-isihlr church?
Bricflv, I maintain that n c must scparatc3 doctrine and lifc,
justification and sanctification. . . .
Dear brother, I clo not \I-ish, Ilo\\circl-, that you ever refer to
me in this matter. I shoulti not like it at 311 if a practical ques-
tion werc- to hc used b! the Ue\il to throw a firebrand into our
midst. (Cf . Con rat! Hcrgcndoff, T h e L)octrin~! of the Chztrclz
irr Ai7zericw~r Lzrtherani.s~n, pp. 4 6 ff. )
It would certainly be poi~ltIcss to cite either I17alther or Sihler
as a final authority on t l ~ e tlefinition of the proper basis for the unitv
of the visiblc church. \Valthrr's line of reasoning, however, is very
relevant to any discussion of the relationship between unity in
ecclesiastical practice and the unity of the visible church.
Lutheran theologians today need to take seriously the problem
of ticfining their church bodies in ternis of a critical reappraisal of
the man!; ways in which the church has been described in theological
treatises produced by American Lutherans. Perhaps in this way thcy
will clarify for thcmselves what is the nature of the unity thev seek.
T h e distinction tleveloped by C. F. 11'. \17alther and perpe-
tuatetl bv Francis Picper between the local congregation as a divinely
ordained institution and an intercongrcgational organization (such
as a synod) as an institution existing tle jzire hzllvzano must bc criti-
cally reclaluatcd in tcrms of its thcological soundness and also in
ternls of its implications for the lifc of Lutheran church bodies in
America. ilssuming, ho~~lever, the validit\ of IValther's distinction
between congregations and church bodies, i t is difficult under the
present circunlstances in the church today to understand how con-
oregations (which exist de jure divino) of two different Lutheran h
synods in the same community could find thcmselves io fcllo~vship
- - - - -
Of The Church
--
39
with one another and still be hindered from exercising that fellow-
ship because the synods (~vhich exist de jzlre hzrmalio) of which they
are lnembers are not in fello~vship with one another.
Pieper, in his Christia~z Dogmatics seclns particularly careless
in observing this distinction bet~vecn congregations and church
bodies. So, for instance, in his discussion of the church he moves
directly from a discussion of "Thc 1,ocal Church a Divine Institution"
to a discussion of "Orthodox and Heterodox Churches." (111, 420-
423) In this latter chapter, ~vithout defining what a church body
is or indicating how and to what extent it may be bound by divine
ordinances, he siinply asserts that "The distinction between orthodox
and heterodox church bodies and congregations 1 note the confusion
of the two lcvels of ecclesiastical organizations] is based on this
divine order [of Rom. 16 : 1 7 and I Tim. 6: 3 ff , according to which
'all Christians without exception are to avoid' those who 'deviate from
the \Vord of God']." (111, 3 2 2 ) The obvious question remains:
How and to what extent do these and similar Biblical citations
really apply to the general unity of the visible church militant?
How do they apply to the unity of church bodies?
It might be suggested that in Picper's lengthy section on the
ecclesia reltraese?ztiva he would prol'ide an adequate definition of a
church body. Unfortunately he failed to define the relationship be-
tween the church (Cfza Sa~zcta), the churches, and the church bodies.
(Today we could add a fourth category: church federations or
coul~cils. )
Probably as a result of his failure to observe the distinction
between the visible and the invisible church, Pieper, in his discus-
sion of orthodox and heterodox churches, ignores the important fact
that the church militant is never perfectly obedicnt to God's will
for it. To support, as he does, a separation in the cllurch with the
observation, "Chaff and wheat do not belong together," (111, 422)
reflects what seems to be a curious twist to Jcsus' Parable of the
Tares among the \\'heat, which, if anything, supports the mainten-
ance of church unity in spitc of the presencc of .'tarts" within the
community.
It seeins possible that the traditional definitions of the church-
on various levels of existence-which have been developed in the
Xlissouri Synod might well be more closely examined. IVhile the
L7?za Sancta may well be defined in terms of ideals of perfection,
conlpleteness and holiness, the institutional-and especially synodi-
cal-organizations of the church only share partially in that purity.
The unity of the church, insofar as it is a human institution, nus t
of necessit) be understood in terllls of a church which, like its mem-
bers, is sintzl l jztstz,is et peccator. To clailn perfection for the church
militant-much less for church bodies-is to lapse into an Anabap-
tist sectarian understancling of the church.
Perhaps the truth is &at the necessary purity of a church body
is not clearly defined by G d in the Bible. I t is surely not insignifi-
cant that Adolf Hoenecke in his discussion of the ecclesia late dicta
(the visible church) in his Dogmatik, introduces no Biblical cita-
tions to support his discussion of true and false churches.
The true ecclesia late dicta (visible church) is to be distin-
guished from that which is false. This distinction is not abso-
lute. It does not imply that the true church is the church while
the false church is in no way the church, This distinction is
rather a relative one (distinctio relativa or yriz~itiva). The true
church is that external church fellowship which proclaims in
their purity the articles of the faith necessary for salvation and
administers properly the sacraments. The false church (ecclesia
falsa, impura, corrupts) is that in which articles of faith are
mixed with error and the sacraments are not administered in the
right way for the right purpose. (Hoenecke, IVY 160).
Hoenecke goes on to point out that thc standard of purity for the
True Visiblc Church is absolute. LTnfortunately he did not define
precisely how such purity \\-as to he measured. For that mattcr
neither did C. F. \V. \\'ahher in his threc major narks on the church.
In Part C of Thesis SSI of T h e E ~ ~ l z ~ ~ ~ e l i c a l Lzrtl~ernkl Chllrch the
Trzie Visil~le Cl~llrch of God o r 1 l