# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1971_S54
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

54 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

and resolutions do not have the same status among us as
the Scriptures and Confessions; this too needs to be
clearly understood. Our pastors, teachers, and professors
do not formally subscribe to such resolutions when they
are ordained or installed, nor do our congregations ordi-
narily acknowledge such statements in their constitu-
tions. Moreover we readily admit that synodical con-
ventions, like church councils, can and do err. We
make no claims in advance for the absolute infallibility
of our doctrinal statements and have given evidence
of this fact by establishing procedures for dissent. (I am
referring to the action of previous conventions in asking
dissenters to discuss their differences with their col-
leagues and share them with our Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations.) Those who disagree with
a doctrinal statement adopted by the Synod have every
right to follow such established procedures in an effort
to convince the Synod it has erred. But it needs to be
emphasized that the burden of proof is with the dis-
senter and that no member of the Synod has the free-
dom to disregard or contradict such statements in his
public teaching until it is proven that they fall short
of or go beyond what Scripture teaches. We are a synod
of brethren linked by our common confession of faith.
To disregard the voice of the Synod is a loveless and
divisive act and may well reflect a lack of fidelity to
our confessional commitment.

The basic question we need to answer once again at
this convention is simple and unbiased: Does an evan-~
gelical and confessional church body such as ours have
the right and duty to adopt doctrinal statements which
are in complete conformity with Scripture and the Lu-
theran Confessions — and then expect her pastors,
teachers, and professors, out of faithfulness to Scripture
and the Confessions, to believe, teach, and confess ac~
cording to such statement? In the past, the answer has
been a resounding yes.

Why is this matter of so great importance, and why
has it been given so much attention at this point? There
are two reasons. In the first place, there is a theological
reason, namely, that our church must remain faithful to
the Word of God. The church lives by and out of and
with the Word. We have no other purpose than to pro-
claim the great message of reconciliation. This is not
a manmade message. It is a Scripture-based message,
a message that we have pledged ourselves always to
proclaim. The one task of the church is to preach Christ,
and we do not know Christ apart from the Scriptures,
When the Scriptures are obscured, Christ will be ob-
scured. We have, therefore, a very great theological
reason for insisting on sound doctrine.

There is also a second reason. That is an ethical and
moral one. The members of our church have been
brought up to believe that our pastors are truly faithful
to the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions. They
read synodically adopted doctrinal resolutions and ex-
pect their pastors, teachers and professors to teach in
harmony with them. Our people expect that our future
pastors and teachers will be taught according to the

doctrinal position of our church in our seminaries and
colleges. They expect their pastors and teachers to
preach and teach according to the official position of
our church. They expect their servants in administra-
tive offices or staff positions to produce materials and
carry out their duties in harmony with the Synod’s offi-
cial position. Our people have a right to expect this
of their pastors, teachers, professors, and officials. In
the overwhelming majority of cases, such expectations
are not disappointed, for God has blessed our Synod
with many faithful servants, But it is clearly unethical
and unloving for our pastors and teachers to violate the
legitimate expectations of our people.

It is imperative that our church settle this question
of the status of doctrinal resolutions and that we pro-
ceed from such statements of what we believe and con-
fess to a massive ongoing proclamation of this wonderful
message to the world. The world will not stand still
while we wrangle or halt uncertainly. Let us express
our own willingness to stand by the position of our
Synod and urge all members of the Synod to do the
same. Let not the progress of this great church be held
up forever and ever by the doubts, the uncertainty, and
the lack of confidence which now exist among us over
this question, “Where do we stand doctrinally?”

Earlier in my report, I referred to Dr. Walther’s
Treatise on Open Questions. It is very evident that Dr.
Walther, the eminent founder of our Synod and perhaps
her greatest theologian, did not believe that there was
room in the church for open questions on matters which
are clearly taught in the Word of God. Today, in deal-
ing with the matter of synodically adopted doctrinal
concerns, the Synod must determine whether it still
shares Dr. Walther’s position. We must decide how
much freedom in Biblical interpretation and how much
doctrinal diversity our church can permit and still re-
main under the Word of God.

Permit me to cite several examples of the variations
of doctrinal opinion which are current in our church
at the present time. You will note that these matters
deal with very basic questions. If our church is ready
to declare such matters open questions, we will have
to interpret our constitutional commitment to the Scrip-
tures and Confessions in such a broad sense that as
long as a man claims to subscribe to them in some form
or another no further questions can be asked of him.
However, if we determine to understand our Constitu-
tion in the way in which it was understood by Dr. Wal-
ther and the founders of the Synod, we cannot permit
matters such as the following to be treated as mere open
questions.

1. Some in our church who claim to accept the doc-
trinal content of the Lutheran Confessions operate with
a very restrictive understanding of what constitutes
“doctrine.” For example, they apparently do not re-
gard the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and
Eve and of the Fall as a “doctrinal” item but rather as
an exegetical question or a theological construct, where