Full Text for The Reunion of Christendom, part 2 (Text)

Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. XIV JUNE, 1943 The Reunion of Christendom (Continued) No.6 Examining the basic principle of unionism, "In essentials (fun­damentals), unity -in non-essentials (non-fundamentals), lib­erty," 6) we need to call attention to some additional points. We have to point out, in the first place, that in urging the acceptance ot their principle upon us the union-men occasionally misapply a sound principle of theology. It is good theology to distinguish between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines, the funda­mental articles being those which form the basis of faith, the non­fundamental articles those "which are indeed found in Scripture but are not the foundation or object of faith in so far as it obtains forgiveness of sins and makes men children of God" (Pieper), those parts "of the Christian doctrine which one may be ignorant of or omit and yet be saved" (Hollaz). The doctrine of the angels, for instance, is non-fundamental. Our faith in the forgiveness of 6) The reader will recall how the unionists apply this motto. Here is another typical statement. The United Methodist Church (of England), in its Response to the Report of the Lausanne World Conference, de­clares: "Even so, we do not anticipate that all differences in conviction can be adjusted. We are persuaded that many qtt.estions will. need to be left open as not of the essence of the Christian Faith, but as questions on which Christians, without disloyalty to Christ, their Lord, may agree to differ." For instance: "This Conference sorrowfully recognizes that the Table of the Lord which should unite Christians is precisely that which frequently divides them, and it joins in the earnest prayer 'that the differences which prevent full communion at the present time may be removed.' It is, however, sensible that such 'full communion' is only possible if a large freedom is allowed in respect to the interpreta­tions to be put upon the Sacraments." Then, what are the essentials? "The way to union will be found not primarily in a unification of thought about Christ and His saving purpose and method, but in a faith in Christ Himself as Savior and Lord -a faith that issues in an ex­perience of salvation which is the common possession of all Christian believers, and in an allegiance to Christ which shows itself in the whole­hearted doing of all that is believed to be His will." (See Convictions, edited by Rev. L. Hodgson, pp. 40, 42.) That is sufficiently indefinite. 25 386 The Reunion of Christendom sin does not rest on the fact that the good angels serve us and the evil angels harm us. This doctrine comforts us, warns us, calls for the exercise of faith, and is therefore an important doctrine, but it has not, by far, the imporLance of the fundamental doctrines. This distinction is a good one. It is of practical importance. The Christian teacher must know which things come first in his preaching and instructing. Our distinction also answers the ques­tion whether a religious body is a Christian Church or not. It may deny non-fundamental articles, but as long as it teaches the funda­mentals, we are assured that there are believers in its midst; it is a Christian Church. (See F. Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, I, p. 102. J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p.56.) This distinction, however, does not mean that while there must be unity in fundamentals, there is liberty in non-fundamentals. The fact that one doctrine is of less importance than others does not and cannot mean that this doctrine may be ignored or denied. "It is self-evident," says Pieper, "that the purpose of distinguishing between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines cannot be to grant a dispensation from accepting certain doctrines of the Bible. No man has this right; yes, it is expressly fOI'bidden in ScriptuL:"." (Op. cit., p. 89.) But now we find that unionists ~'-re doing this vel'Y thing. They use the legitimate distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines to break down our resistance against the wicked principle: In non-fundamentals liberty. They attempt to befuddle the mind of the people with the illogical argu­ment: since men are saved in a church which denies certain non­fundamentals, why do you insist on the necessity of keeping these non-fundamentals pure instead of treating them as indifferent and unimportant? A classical example of such argumentation was furnished by the Great Elector, Frederick William I of Branden­burg, in his attempt to unite the Lutheran and the Reformed churches. After forbidding contToveTsial sermons and the like, "the climax came when, Aug. 21, 1662, he ordered the Lutheran pastors to meet the Reformed ministers for a discussion of the question 'Whether there was anything taught in the Reformed Confession because of which the individual who believes and teaches it must be condemned by divine judgment or whether in the same there was anything denied or omitted the unacquaintance with which on the part of an individual will make it impossible for God to save him." "Again you see," comments Prof. Th. Hoyer, "the footprints of Calixtus and the Helmstedt theology: the funda­mentals of religion are the doctrines necessary for salvation; where men agree on these, a union may be established. The Elector had worded his question adroitly, and the plan, of course, was evi­dent. He asked: Can a member of the Reformed Church be The Reunion of Christendom 387 saved? When this had to be admitted, he drew the conclusion: Then the differences are unessential; unite on the fundamentals. Just like the present-day unionists the Elector would not or could not see the fallacy involved in this conclusion. In the matter of church union it is not at all a question of what or how much the individual must believe in order to be saved; there the point is: the Church is obligated by Christ to teach men to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded them. A union with a church which by its own plain confession does not teach all that Christ has commanded is disobedience to His Word. A move of that kind would be based on indifferentism." (Proc. Syn. Conf., 1938, p. 26.)­It is a rather clu..'TIsy fallacy; to say that a doctrine is not of the first necessity is not saying that it is not necessary at all. Dr. Walther wrote much on the matter of non-fundamentals. And he knew full well that there are true Christians who are in error regarding some non-fundamental articles. He was ready to bear with them in great patience. (We shall take this up once more in the final installment of this series, on the Christian re­D . 1.) ~ut he did not cOIamit the fallacy of the Great Elector. He declared: "No man h~s the Uberty, and to no man may liberty be giV('D, to believe or teach differently from what God has rev~aled in His holy Word, vvhether the matters in question pertain to ploimary or to secondary fundamental articles of faith, to funda­mental or non-fundamental doctrines, to matters of faith or matters of life, to matters of history or other things that are subject to human investigation, to important or apparently unimportant things." (Lehr8 tend Wehre, 1868, p. 298. See the entire series of propositions, translated in CONe. THEOL. MTHLY., XI, p.298.) On page 112 of Lehre und WehTe, 1868, 'lye have this statement of Dr. Waltl "Would men actually try to bring about peace by declaring a matter to be an open question simply because it does not concern a fundamental article of faith? ,rvhich mcln, which angel can give a dispensation from obeying God's Word? Is it not Antichrist alone who arrogates this right?" 7) A clear mind can easily grasp both propositions: 1. The ar­ticles of faith differ ~s to their importance; 2. The aTticles of faitl1 7) Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Winchester, writes: "Further­more, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith the distin'2tio~ invented by .some betvveen 'fundamental' nd '....lV-'-L­fundamental' articles, the former to be 8ccepted by all, the tter being left to the free acceptance of the faithful. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal motive the authority of God revealing, and this allows of no such distinction." (The Reunion of Christendot Marchant, p.22.) At the Malines Conversations "an attempt to draw 1 abstract distinction 'between fUIldamental and non-fundarnental