Threinen, Norman J.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 1 | Issue 4 Article 410-1-1975Lutheran Union Negotiations: a Moment ofReflectionNorman J. ThreinenFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationThreinen, Norman J. (1975) "Lutheran Union Negotiations: a Moment of Reflection," Consensus: Vol. 1 : Iss. 4 , Article 4.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol1/iss4/4SPECIALREPORTLUTHERAN UNION NEGOTIATIONS— A Moment of Reflection—It is useful at times to step back from the things that are happening and reflecton them with the hope of putting them into historical perspective. This is what isintended by this report. It is hoped that the merger negotiations can be put intotheir historical context and thereby each of us can come to some freshperspectives and insights into our church in Canada.A Culmination of the PastIn 1972 the ELCC issued an invitation to the Missouri Synod in Canada (LC-C)and the Lutheran Church in America - Canada Section to negotiate to bringabout a consolidation of Lutherans in Canada. For some people who had not beeninvolved, either vicariously through reading or directly through contact withother Lutherans in their area, this move may have seemed almost reckless.Inter-Lutheran relationships in Canada had improved horn what they once werebut surely Lutherans were not ready to enter into a union. It was totallypremature. And yet, was it?If we can get to the point of seeing that Canadian Lutheranism has a history ofits own, we will see that a reoccurring theme in this country has been a desire forone Lutheran Church in Canada. This is particularly true in Western Canadawhere the Synodical divisions based on doctrinal differences were not indigeniousto most Lutheranism and were, in a very real way, imported. As far as most of thepeople in the congregations were concerned, they often used the Synodicaldivisions consciously and unconsciously to justify divisions among themselveswhich were totally non-theological in nature. Also the presence of severalLutheran bodies often was useful for getting pastoral services. Thus when localsquabbles had cooled or when congregations found themselves strugglingfinancially to remain solvent, it was not uncommon for people to look atthemselves and other Lutherans and ask, **Why are we divided?” And whenpeople moved out of the more static rural communities into urban centres, it wasnot uncommon for them to go to the closest Lutheran church without much2526 Consensusthought about its Synodical affiliation. The one thing that still sometimes keptpeople within their origin2il Synodical body was famili£irity with a particularhymnal or a particular pastor in the new locality.But the question, “Why are we divided?” was not only asked by the laity. It wasalso asked by the clergy. And, in many instances it was even asked by churchleaders after the heat of competition for new fields in the latter part of thenineteenth century and the early part of this century had cooled. Thus in 1931,when the Canadian representatives of the constituent bodies of the AmericanLutheran Conference met for the first time, the suggestion surfaced that aCanadian Lutheran Church be established with autonomous Synods. Taking intoaccount the fact that the five Lutheran bodies reflected four different languagetraditions, it is amazing that such a suggestion could be made. Yet even with thelanguage barriers, a need was felt for a united Lutheran Church structure inCanada.The vision, limited to the constituent members of the American LutheranConference in 1931, wcis broadened to include all Lutherans in Canada twodecades later. After a meeting of American Lutheran Conference representativesin May, 1951 a free conference took place in December that year which includedalso the other two Lutheran bodies active in Canada the U.L.C.A. (now part of theL.C.A.) and the Missouri Synod. The major topics discussed at that meeting were“What are our common grounds toward closer unity or a merger of the CanadianLutheran Churches?”, “What things constitute real or imaginary barriers to sucha closer union or merger?” and “What steps can be taken to cement closer tiesand overcome present obstacles to closer unity or a merger of the CanadianLutheran Churches?”Three years later at a “Today-Tomorrow Conference” under the direction of theCanadian Lutheran Council the picture of Canadian Lutheranism was probed andthe vision of a Canadian Lutheran Church and how it might be achieved wasthoroughly examined. Then in 1955 the western representatives of the CanadianLutheran Council discussed the possibility of forming a Western CanadaLutheran Church. The following year the vision was again expanded to benation-wide and to include the Missouri Synod. Church leaders met annu£illyafter that (except for 1967) in what is now known as the Joint Commission onInter-Lutheran Relationships.Thus when the ELCC extended the invitation to the other two-thirds ofLutheranism in Canada in 1972, it was echoing the desire of Canadian Lutheransof many decades. And when the JCILR met in November, 1973 it was confrontedbasically with the same questions which were discussed formally 22 years before- what do we need to achieve Lutheran union? How do we achieve the goal? Theonly difference was that a formal invitation to negotiate such a united LutheranChurch had been issued and accepted. A lot of talking had also been done in themeantime and church leaders had worked together effectively in various ways sothe time was perhaps more ripe for concrete action in 1973. Yet it must have beensimilar to seeing an old movie again for some of the participants of the 1973Special Report 27meeting. The same and yet different, for now it appeared that the dream mightbecome a reality.For some, especicdly in the Missouri Synod, it may still feel that we are rushinginto something for which we are insufficiently prepared psychologically,emotionally and perhaps theologically. But as one views the steam of historywhich is Canadian Lutheranism, it is realistic to say, **Let’s be serious about ournegotiations. Let’s not drag our feet. Let’s work at seeing whether in fact aCanadian Lutheran Church, comprising most of Canadian Lutheranism, can beachieved.” The present negotiations to consolidate Canadian Lutheranism is inreality a culmination of the past.Just one further note on this matter. The laymen, who have often tolerated theSynodical divisions more out of love and respect for their pastors than out ofpersonal conviction that they are necessary, were represented at the 1973meeting of the JCILR. It was the laymen in the group who especially pressed for aconcrete plan of action for Lutheran union. And most laymen with whom I havebeen in contact have the attitude, “We’re ready when the pastors are.” In otherwords laymen, who are informed on the activities in progress, generally favourthe formation of an inclusive Canadian Lutheran Church, at least on the nationaland regional level. For most of them it would be a culmination of what they havefelt should have occurred a long time ago.A Reflection of Canadian IdentityIt is significant that the ELCC was the church body which issued the invitationto negotiate a consolidation of Lutheranism in Canada. For the ELCC is the onlyone of the three major Lutheran bodies in Canada which is completelyautonomous.In the history of Canadian Lutheranism, the times when Lutheranism in thiscountry was faced with the reality of its Canadiain identity were the times when astrong need was felt for Lutherans to move closer together. The other side of thecoin is that the times when the connection of Canadian Lutheranism with U.S.Lutheranism was strongly felt were also the times when Canadians tended tomove into stances of greater isolation from one another.It is a fact of history that organized Lutheranism in Canada, particularly in thewest, has its roots in the U.S. Although many of the people in the churches havenpt come from the U.S., the support in manpower and money came from there.Also in all cases, the structures of the Canadian churches were integral parts ofthe churches which had their headquarters and the bulk of their membership inthe U.S. To all intents and purposes Canada might as well have been a part of theUnited States as far as the churches were concerned. While this arrangementhad advantages, it also had some inherent disadvantages. For it tended to makeCanadian Lutheranism more foreign to the Canadian scene than it already wasby virtue of being largely 2in ethnic church.But a number of Canadian events served to confront Lutheransim with itsCanadian identity. And in virtually every instance there was a corresponding28 Consensusmovement of Lutherans toward each other. Although this movement closertogether was not a movement toward a consolidation of the churches, itrepresented a consolidation of resources and energies which provided impetus forthe former. It was, very natural for people to reflect, **If we can work togetherharmoneously and effectively from within our different Lutheran church bodies,could we not work together even better within a united Lutheran body inCanada?”What were some of these Canadian events which brought CanadianLutheranism closer together? There may be earlier events which could be citedbut the first Canadian chzdlenge, after all of Canadian Lutheranism had at leastsome sort of distinct Canadian organizational identity, was the influx ofimmigrants in the 1920’s. Since most of them were German, this challengeconfronted particularly the three “German” Lutheran bodies. The challenge metco-operatively through an organization called, the Lutheran Immigration Board.(LIB).It might be said that the churches themselves did not act co-operativelythrough this Board. It was never endorsed or supported by the churches nor did itreport to church conventions. Strictly speaking it was an organization made up ofindividual pastors.But taking note of who these pastors on the LIB were, how the organizationfunctioned and what its purposes were, one sees that it fallacious argument to saythat the churches were not actually working together in this enterprize. With fewexceptions the members of the LIB were the presidents and mission directors ofthe Canadian Districts of the Missouri and Ohio Synods and of the Canadian.Synods of the ULCA. The organization worked with loccil committees set up incongregations of the churches where German immigrants could find farmemployment. The goal was to channel German Lutheran immigrants into areaswhere the churches had existing congregations or in a couple of instances, wherea new congregation was envisioned. Thus, though not formally part of theoperation of the churches, it is readily apparent that the UB was in fact an arm ofhome missions for the “German” Lutheran churches in Canada.Given the integral way in which the Canadian parts of the churches were boundin with the U.S. portions, it is significant that the LIB operated totally in theCanadian context. The extent to which it was Canadian in origin and scope isdemonstrated by a letter which the National Lutheran Council in the U.S. wroteto the Canadian government, a year after the LIB was organized, requestinginformation about it. The U.S. officials of the churches apparently knew nothingabout it.It was also a project in which the “German” Lutheran bodies in Canadaco-operated fully. Only the traditional rivalry between the CPR and the CNR,resulting in the creation of the Canadian Lutheran Immigration Aid Society(CLIAS) in 1928, caused a breakdown in this co-operative Lutheran venture.Another Canadian event which could be cited is the Second World War. Wartime has had a way of making the churches aware of their Canadian identity. TheSpecial Report 29problems connected with the flow of money and manpower across theU.S.-Canadian border during the First World War were largely responsible for theestablishment of the two Western Districts of the Missouri Synod in 1921 and1922.The Second World War brought in the dimension of serving the Lutherans inthe armed forces. Remembering the fact that Canada was involved in the war twoyears before the U.S., we note that Canadian representatives of the sevenLutheran bodies serving in this country met in April, 1940 and organized aCanadian Lutheran Commission for War Services. When the matter was referredto the various churches for ratification, the Missouri Synod did not participate.However two Missouri Synod clergymen were present at the meeting at which theCommission was organized and one of them was a member of the three-mandrafting committee which gave shape to the organization. Furthermore when theMissouri Synod set up its own Canadian organization which paralleled theCommissions activities, the man who helped shape the Commission became theexecutive secretary of the Missouri Synod’s counter part and a very close workingrelationship with the commission was maintained.Immediately after the war the matter of relief work and refugee settlementbrought Canadians together under the umbrella of Canadian Lutheran WorldRelief. Although, all of these activities reflected **co-operation in externals”, theywere responses to the challenges which Canadian situations called forth and ineach instance there seemed to be a natural tendency for Lutherans to actco-operatively. At least one Canadian Lutheran church leader assessed theeffects of this type of activity as facilitating the discovery of a genuine unity offaith and spirit and the establishment of a bond of fellowship which wouldproduce far greater things in the years to come.If we want to point to more contemporary examples of Canadian challenges towhich the churches have taken a co-operative approach we could point to manyof the things which are done through the Lutheran Council in Canada -chaplaincy service in penal institutions and hospitals and on universitycampuses, etc. We could also point to the Lutheran Theological Seminary inSaskatoon where the establishment of a chair of theology by the Missouri Synodwas largely as a response of the Canadian church in solving a Canadian problem,i.e. the difficulties which Canadian theological students and their wives hadgetting permission to work in the U.S.The point in all of this is that there seems to be a direct relationship - it’sdifficult to define it as a coincidence in each of these instances - between thesurfacing of a Canadian identity on the part of the churches and their movingcloser together. So also now, this invitation to consolidate Canadian Lutheranismcomes, not so much motivated by nationalism as the recognition by the churchesthat they have a mission to carry out in the context of Canada. In other words, thechurches are reflecting a consciousness of their Canadian identity. And thisconsciousness of Canadian identity is accompanied by the recognition that30 ConsensusLutherans would be able to carry out their mission most effectively in the contextof a united Lutheran church.Facing up to RealityThe ELCC invitation, 1 think, has a way of asking the Lutheran Churches inCanada to face up to reality. In the past there has often been a tendency forLutherans to paint one another with very broad strokes of the brush.There has been the tendency to lay all of the sins the entire church body (realor imagined) at the door of the local church and pastor without bothering to findout what the local situation actually was. There may be a way in which we sharein the faults of our entire church body. Yet the merger invitation of the ELCCconfronted us with the need of facing up to the reality of what the real situation isamong Lutherans in Canada. If we are considering the possibility of setting up aLutheran Church in Canada, it doesn’t do to pull in problems from all over theNorth American continent. We have to face up to the reality of what theCanadian situation is. In addition, coming at it from another direction, we shouldno longer expect someone else to tell us whether our discussions reveal sufficientunity. The onus should be on us.There is another aspect to this. In 1969 when the Missouri Synod 2iffirmed itselfto be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the American Lutheran Church and, inCanada, with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, it was on the basis ofdoctrinal discussions. In the case of fellowship with the ELCC, the discussionstook place in the context of the Joint Commission on Inter-LutheranRelationships. The fact that the Missouri Synod did not also include the hand offellowship to the LCA-Canada Section, whose representatives sharecLin the samediscussions, caused considerable consternation for the LCA in Canada. In doingso the LCA in Canada had taken a stance different from the LCA in the U.S.which refused to have discussions with the Missouri Synod. But somehow thisdidn’t seem to make any difference.The merger invitation has focused on this situation and presents a challenge forus to find a way, constitutionally and otherwise, to close the triangle of Lutheranfellowship relationships. It is a challenge for us to face up to the re2ility of wherewe as Lutherans are in this country and to see whether we have sufficient unityamong us to be able to form a single Lutheran Church in Canada.NJT

Lutheran Union Negotiations: a Moment of Reflection

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2326&amp;context=consensus

Lutheran Union Negotiations: a Moment of Reflection

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University