ROUGHLY EDITED COPY CH3-055 PROFESSOR LAWRENCE RAST PROFESSOR WILL SCHUMACHER Captioning Provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 1924 Lombard, IL 60148 800-825-5234 ***** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. ***** >> JOSHUA: In an earlier answer you referred to the Synodical Conference. Does that organization of confessional Lutheran churches still exist today? >> DR. LAWRENCE RAST: Joshua, the simple answer to your question is no. The Synodical Conference ceased to exist as a distinct body in the 1960's. However there is quite a story that's embraced in the history of the Synodical Conference. And if I could take a few minutes of your time, I'd like to tell you about it. As you've already heard from Dr. Schumacher, there were a number of Lutheran synods that were thinking about union during the 1860's. As a matter of fact, there was great hope during that turbulent time that the Lutheran Church might be able to find a way to move toward organic unity, formal church fellowship in terms of altar and pulpit fellowship, but even beyond that into the merger of the confessional churches across language boundaries into one confessional Lutheran Church in America. Sadly, that did happen. And the reasons for it were largely theology and practice that differentiated the various synods. You've heard that the General Council was formed in 1867 at a meeting in Fort Wayne, Indiana and that this particular church body became a clearing house, if you will, for confessional Lutherans of historic background. What I mean by that is simply this: Some of the older Lutheran synods had begun to move toward a distinctively confessional position, The New York Synod, the Pennsylvania Ministerium, the Pittsburg Synod, and many others as well. The idea of the General Council was to draw all confessional Lutherans together into one confessional church body. However, this was not realizable in the end, sadly to say. The reasons being that there remained within and among the various synods differences of theology and practice. In 1868, the Ohio Synod posed a question, actually a series of four points, to the General Council asking it to expand on these points and answer clearly what its theology and practice was. Those four points were as follows: First, what is the position of this particular church body on secret societies, lodge membership; second, what is the position of this church body on chiliasm or millennialism; third, what is the position of the church body on altar fellowship; and what is the church's position, fourthly, on altar fellowship. So once more, lodge membership, millennialism, alter fellowship, and pulpit fellowship. Those were the four points. The response of the General Council was somewhat vague allowing for a variety of opinions and a variety of practices in respect to these four particular points. In terms of lodge membership, it simply stated, we are coming out of a tradition that has allowed pastors and church members to hold membership simultaneously in their Lutheran congregations and in various lodges. As a result, we will not be able to simply de facto decree that you may no longer be a member, but rather, that it will take some time to correct this particular practice. In regard to millennialism, the General Council argued that the Lutheran confessions simply condemn postmillennialism but not other millennial interpretations. As such, it allowed for a variety of opinions on whether there was a millennium or not. And if there was a millennium, what the character of that millennium will be. But the real points at issue were altar and pulpit fellowship, and especially altar fellowship. And here it became clear that even within the General Council, there was a wide variety of opinion, at least 3 positions. There were those who had their roots in the old General Synod who continued to practice what we would have to call open communion. In fact, in the liturgies of the old General Synod, a general call to communion was offered to all Christians at every celebration of the Lord's Supper. Confessional boundaries were not recognized. Simply, if one was a Christian, then one was admitted. On the other extreme, there were those who argued for closed communion, those who said only Lutherans should participate in the Lord's Supper at a Lutheran altar. And then a larger group in the middle argued for what they called discriminate communion. That is to say, if a pastor was convinced that an individual was truly a Christian, then it was necessary for him to commune that person. Not to do so would be to declare that person outside the church. Obviously, with such different positions within the one church body, tension would result. And ironically enough, the Ohio Synod�s posing of this question really served to show the wide difference of opinion that existed within the General Counsel. Now, the General Council knew that there were differences of opinion. What they had perhaps underestimated was just how deep these differences ran. They had started their church with a proposal that we know there are differences and that these differences remain. But what we will do is proclaim our agreement and confessional position and work out the differences as time goes by. The Missouri Synod, on the other hand, had not participated in the formation of the General Council saying, that it is requisite upon us that we first work out the differences of which we are aware and then proclaim fellowship. So Missouri had remained out of the General Council. Once the Ohio Synod raised these points, it then became disheartened at the response of the General Council. And as the 1870's opened, it formally withdrew from fellowship in that church body. However, in 1872, the Synod of Ohio, along with the Missouri Synod, the Norwegian Synod, the Wisconsin Synod and several others got together to form a new conference: namely, the Synodical Conference. And the Synodical Conference believed that they had achieved full union in doctrine and practice previous to their declaring their church fellowship. And on they went. Some hoped that the conference itself would provide the basis for eventual merger between the various bodies. In fact, C. F. W. Walther and great hopes for the potential in this regard and looked forward to the near merger of these church bodies. Sadly, that was not to be either. For in the late 1870's, this church body was rocked by the predestination controversy, the results being division between the members of the Synodical Conference and ongoing difficulties in achieving Lutheran union. The long and short of it is this: that in the wake of the predestination controversy, the Synodical Conference ultimately would have four members, particularly once we get past the year 1920. Those four members would be: the Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Slovak Synod. These groups remained in pulpit and altar fellowship throughout the middle part of the 20th-century, from 1920 until 1963. Yet, even within their midst, controversies began to arise. And as the 30's and 40's progressed, consternation was expressed by the Wisconsin Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod over and against the Missouri Synod's continued attempts at achieving union with the American Lutheran Church, the ALC. At issue are some basic things. Prayer fellowship, that is to say, is it appropriate for Christians to pray with one another even if they are not in full agreement in doctrine and practice. Chaplaincy work, the Wisconsin Synod believed very strongly that chaplaincy work led to unionism. The participation of members of congregations in the Boy Scouts, again a union is the concern among the WELS. And other issues as well. Again, the story, long and short of it is this: As these issues came more and more to the forefront, and as tensions rose among the members of the Synodical Conference, first the ELS suspended fellowship with the Missouri Synod though it did not formally leaves the Synodical Conference. That happened in 1955. A flurry of activity resulted as the various synods tried to work out their differences in a series of four position papers on fellowship being articulated, but finally, the ELS and the WELS were convinced that Missouri had gone too far. And in their respective conventions in the year 1963, they both withdrew from fellowship in the Synodical Conference. That left two bodies in the Synodical Conference: the Missouri Synod and the Slovak Synod. Despite hopes expressed by leaders of the Missouri Synod that this would open a new era in the Synodical Conference, it quickly proved not to be. Rather, the Missouri Synod entered into relationships with the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, the LCA, a group called LCUSA with the hopes that this would provide the foundation and the forum for eventual church unity. The Slovak Synod and Missouri Synod finally realized the Synodical Conference was effectively no more. And in 1968, the Slovak Synod joined the Missouri Synod as a nongeographical district. The Synodical Conference was no more. Nevertheless, its history can teach us something and tell us something about our work in the present. The Synodical Conference was founded as an ecumenical endeavor, if you will, as one historian has recently put it. And that Ecumenical endeavor was to consistently maintain open communications with fellow Lutherans to discuss the points of doctrine and to strive to make the faithful confession. We won't do ourselves any good if we simply cut ourselves off from the ongoing conversation within and among America's Lutherans. And the Synodical Conference showed how that could be a tremendous blessing. Though it has passed from the scene, its model in this regard still has something to teach us as we move forward in this 21st century in American Lutheranism. ***** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communications Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *****