The AALC's 2026 video reply to Overture 5-09 argues that fellowship rests on doctrine alone, yet the 2007 record under which the AALC was received into LCMS fellowship says otherwise.
The AALC seems to have a different definition of "practice." "Practice," as I have always understood it, is simply a matter of being consistent with one's doctrine. For example, if the official doctrine is Closed Communion, then the consistent "practice" would be actually enforcing Closed Communion. Of course, in this case, the practice of the LCMS is actually at odds with its doctrine in many, many cases.
But the AALC defines "practice" as polity and policies, in which they claim there is no assumption of conformity between the synods. I agree with their stance, according to their definition, but I think their definition is flawed.
It's an incredibly interesting point that should have been nailed down in 2007 to avoid the ambiguity and hair-splitting we now see. Nevertheless, the AALC has scored an own goal with its response.
The AALC seems to have a different definition of "practice." "Practice," as I have always understood it, is simply a matter of being consistent with one's doctrine. For example, if the official doctrine is Closed Communion, then the consistent "practice" would be actually enforcing Closed Communion. Of course, in this case, the practice of the LCMS is actually at odds with its doctrine in many, many cases.
But the AALC defines "practice" as polity and policies, in which they claim there is no assumption of conformity between the synods. I agree with their stance, according to their definition, but I think their definition is flawed.
It's an incredibly interesting point that should have been nailed down in 2007 to avoid the ambiguity and hair-splitting we now see. Nevertheless, the AALC has scored an own goal with its response.
In this age it's not possible to separate doctrine and practice. Whether it's ok to align 100% with the Missouri Synod on practice, no.