The Statement that this Essay is a Reaction To.

In reading the this web pages history of the CLC, the following statement is made:

"Since the word of God promises it, we believe that where the gospel in word and sacrament is in use there true believers are present."

Later on, this statement is made:

"we know in faith that it is the divine will that Christians are to be perfectly united in doctrine and practice, and that they are not to be indifferent in this matter (perhaps "agreeing to disagree agreeably") but are to seek agreement on the basis of God's word. "

I hardly desire to pick a fight in anyway, but perhaps merely as a matter of clarity, my email may be of value.

On the first statement. This statement is essentially sterile in its ability to provide a criterion for recognizing the presence of the church, especially in light of your stated position that absolute agreement about the gospel and sacraments are absolutely required before fellowship can be extended. The reason for this is clear: The Gospel and the sacraments are present in a number of Christian denominations, so at best this statement, if left as it is, demonstrates that true believers are present in lots of places besides the CLC.

I have the strange feeling that what you meant to say was more like "where the Gospel, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, and the Sacraments, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, exist, there, true believers exist.

But even that would not be helpful unless you deny that true believers exist in other denominations. In order for your statement to provide content that actually has teeth, it would need to be revised yet again to say, '....exist, AND ONLY THERE, true believers exist.

This is a clear application of reason. Is it therefore your position as a church body that true believers exist only within the CLC? Most people would find that quite offensive. I did not find an explicit answer to this question on your site, but I have the strange feeling that you will at once plead that you never meant to say that there are non-CLC believers. If you plead this, I'd like to point out that this is inconsistent with your current position. May I also inquire as to whether or not nonbelievers exist within a CLC community? If they do, I see very little difference, in practice anyway, between your church and any other church.

I think that I am aware of an argument that is possibly devastating to your argument: this particular statement begins with the phrase, 'Since the word of God promises it,' I challenge you please to provide me with the explicit scriptural reference that states that true believers are present when the gospel and the sacraments are 'rightly administered' (you don't say that, but I assume you mean that). If you can show me the verse, perhaps I would consider the possibility that you may be right. I recall a much more explicit statement out of Christ's mouth that seems more likely to be the case: "For where two ore more are gathered in my name, there I am with them."

I'd like to point out that Christ's statement does not concern itself with whether or not true believers are present, but rather, whether or not Christ is present. In fact, it seems plausible, though admittedly unlikely, that two or more nonbelievers could gather in Christ's name, but due to the explicit promise of Christ, he would be present.

Am I making much of nothing? Have I exaggerated the issues? Feel free to correct me.

Now for the second statement.

Again the assertion is made that "Christians are to be perfectly united in doctrine and practice..." Your web page goes on to express that this is the sole basis allowed for Christian fellowship.

As stated and explained in your document, I wonder who on earth could ever consider such a thing to be possible? Do the CLC churches do exactly the same thing in all of their services? Do they offer the liturgy in the same order? Are they really PERFECTLY united in practice? For you see, the use of the word 'perfect' here is derived from the Greek word 'teleios,' or 'complete.' If indeed you mean complete and utter unity in practice, then absolutely everything would have to be the same in every church. The design of every church building would have to be the same. The structure of the church administration should be the same- no church could have a different number of pastors than another, and so on and so on. But of course you would argue that I am being unreasonable, that this perfect practice doesn't apply to all these things. I am afraid, however, that you are using an absolute term, so if you wish to use it, you must use it to its fullest extent, not stopping some where along the line where it is convenient for you- or when it becomes impractical. You see the contention- if there is not perfect practice within the CLC, then no congregation of the CLC has reasonable grounds for fellowship with any other congregation of the CLC, or any other congregation that has ever existed, for that matter.

Or perhaps you may say that 'perfect unity' in these matters cannot be achieved this side of heaven. Please don't say that, for if you do, I will have to ask why then you would make such a belief the criterion for fellowship in the first place.

And that was just 'perfect unity' in practice. Now onto doctrine. Do you mean to tell me that there is absolutely no shade of difference among any member of any congregation of the CLC? And who determines what the proper doctrine should be in the first place? Or perhaps you will say, "We believe it is enough to accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, the three ecumenical creeds, and the Lutheran Confessions, as the only doctrines that must be agreed upon." However, that is not 'perfect' or complete 'unity,' is it? No, if your statement is to have any teeth whatsoever, every member of your congregation must think the same way on every matter. Also, if you set limitations, than you are being 'indifferent' (your term) about matters of doctrine. What? You don't mean all of the doctrines? Just some of the more important ones? Well, that raises the issue again of who is going to decide what issues are important enough.

Your statements about fellowship and the foundations that your church body have laid for fellowship are reasonably and logically untenable. I have not even begun to provide verses that quite clearly contradict your position. Before I need to open my Bible, your positions on church fellowship, if carried onto their full conclusions (instead of stopping where you felt it was convenient), would actually rule out the possibility of any individual Christian having fellowship with each other, let alone one congregation with another congregation.

What are some verses that contradict you? Well, Jesus words about his presence, quoted above are a start. Let me add where the apostle Paul, in Philippians says, "All those who are mature should think in this way, but if you think differently, the Lord will instruct you." (Its a paraphrase). Or when Paul is condemning divisions in the Corinthian church in regard to communion, and says, "Of course there have to be differences among you to show whom God favors." Or in Ephesians where we are all being built up in our knowledge of Christ in love.

Clearly all of these verses demonstrate that there are many differences of understanding about doctrine AND practice, and even attitudes. There's is even more.

It seems that a more appropriate statement about what Christian unity would be within your church would not be "One in Christ" but "One in doctrinal agreement, etc., etc."

It is a good thing that just because you do not like the part of the body that I am in, for that reason, I do not cease to be a part of that ONE body.

I apologize for any apparent sarcasm. It is painfully obvious that the entire Christian church doesn't have a clue that unity is found in Christ and not in the opinions of men.

I write my letter to plead with you, not to change your minds, to encourage proper reasoning from the Scriptures, and if you will not do that, at least a clear expression of the things you do believe.

I also mean no disrespect. If anything I mean only to be playful about topics that are meaningful to both you and me. Please feel free to forward this to anyone that you feel would be appropriate.

As a playful parting shot: If you will apply Romans 16:17-18 in the manner that you believe it should be applied, I fully expect no answer to this letter, as you should, in obedience to God's command, 'avoid' me.

In Christ, (Thank God)

T H

PS

You also say: "Because we of the CLC deplore any attempt to modify or set aside a single inspired word of Scripture, we also wish to be obedient to those words of God which instruct regarding the Church and the practice of fellowship. We firmly believe that the Church consists of all who, by God's mercy and according to His own purpose and grace, were from eternity ordained unto eternal life, and that the factor uniting the Church is "the one true faith." "

It seems that you've set aside a number of inspired words of scripture. It is ironic. I encourage you to honestly be obedient to (ALL) the words of God relating to these matters.

You may wish to begin by revising this statement to end with 'the factor uniting the Church is "Christ." That would be much more Christian, I think, and unlike your statement, Scriptural.