# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1973_S164
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

164 RESOLUTIONS

Synod understood and operated under this article in the
past; and

Wuereas, The first President of our Synod, Dr. C. F.
W. Walther, in his “Form of a Christian Congregation”
(Translated J. T. Mueller, St. Louis, CPH, 1963) states
in Thesis 16, “Matters of doctrine and conscience are to
be resolved unanimously according to God’s Word and
the Confession of the church (Is. 8:20). Adiaphora,
however, that is, matters which in God’s Word are
neither commanded nor forbidden, are decided ac-
cording to the principles of love and fairness, after a
previous deliberation, in Christian order by a majority
of votes (1 Cor. 16:14; 14:40... Col. 2:5)”; and

WuereEas, Isaiah 8:20 quoted by Walther follows a
section in which the prophet complains that the people
have been seeking wisdom from witches and wizards
rather than from God and there states “To the law and
the testimony: if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them,” thus making
clear Walther’s contention that God’s people in matters
of doctrine and conscience should seek the answer in
the Scriptures rather than deciding what is right by
seeking what the majority favored, thus calling for
unanimity in that all should submit to the Word of God,
man’s opinion having no authority; and

Wuereas, In a controversy concerning the doctrine
of the millenium from 1855 to 1857 the Synod adopted
with one dissenting vote a statement condemning the
doctrine of millenialism and adding “that the Synod
has ascertained that Pastor Schieferdecker no longer
stands in the same confession of faith with it, and there-
fore it is compelled to sever the synodical fellowship
with him” (Missouri Synod Proceedings, 1857, p. 47),
thus making clear that the fathers did not hesitate to
vote on a matter of doctrine and to come to a decision
even if the vote was not unanimous; and

Wuereas, In the controversy concerning the doctrine
of predestination the Synod voted affirmatively in an-
swer to the question “Does the Synod acknowledge the
position of the doctrine of predestination as presented
in the Thirteen Theses just read as the doctrine of holy
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions?” (Missouri
Synod Proceedings, 1881, p. 41), and the convention
then showed how it operated under Article VIII of the
Constitution by taking the position that those who voted
“no” had accused the Synod of false doctrine and then
resolving “As long as they do not honestly repent .. .
there can be no talk of further cooperation or walking
together” (Missouri Synod Proceedings, 1881, pp. 42—
43); and

Wuereas, C. F. W. Walther wrote in his Pastoral
Theologie, 1872, p. 372, “If, when matters of this kind
are under consideration, a vote is taken this dare not be
done in order to let the majority of votes decide, but to
learn by way of the vote whether all have recognized
what is right and are in agreement with it”; and

Wuereas, The learned dogmatician and the President
of the Missouri Synod, Dr. Franz Pieper, wrote in Chris-
tian Dogmatics, Vol. I, p. 430, “The only purpose of

voting in matters of doctrine is to see whether all now
understand the teaching of the divine Word and agree
to it; the purpose of the vote is not to decide the cor-
rectness of a doctrine by majority vote or even by
unanimous vote. The orthodox Christian church re-
mains aware of the fact that it cannot by resolution
make or give birth to Christian doctrines, but must al-
ways merely set forth from Scriptures and profess over
against the prevailing error the doctrines submitted and
settled in Scripture”; and

Wuereas, Both of these synodical fathers thus make
clear that a vote may be taken and that it need not be
unanimous and that the vote does not establish the doc-
trine, but determines those who recognize the true doc-
trine; and

Wuereas, The Synod in 1950 adopted a doctrinal
statement called “The Common Confession” as a state-
ment of “doctrine in harmony with Scriptures” (1950
Proceedings, p. 585); and

Wuereas, In the aforementioned action in 1950 there
were “nay” votes and the 1953 convention was asked in
view of Article VIII C of the Constitution to declare that
the “nay” votes cast in a matter of doctrine “have made
the action null and void”; and

WuereEas, The 1953 convention rejected this conten-
tion that “nay” votes in a matter of doctrine or con-
science rendered an action of the Synod null and void,
the Synod referred to the aforementioned statement by
Dr. Pieper and the Synod adopted a Sept. 28, 1951, rul-
ing of the Committee on Constitutional Matters which
reads, “Therefore when Article VIII C deals with mat-
ters of doctrine and conscience, it says nothing about a
unanimous vote or majority vote, but demands that all
such matters are decided by the Word of God” (1953
Proceedings, pp. 485—489); and

Wuereas, To interpret Article VIII C to mean that
the Synod cannot vote on a doctrinal matter in order to
recognize what the Word of God says or to insist that
such a vote must be unanimous is not only to go con-
trary to the history of the Synod, but also contrary to
sound reason, to wit, to insist on a unanimous vote or
no vote at all would be to condemn the Synod to forever
being unable to take a doctrinal stance or to settle a
doctrinal controversy; and

Wuereas, Such a condition would turn The Lutheran
Church — Missouri Synod into a church body where
each could go his own theological way so long as he in-
sisted that he was in harmony with the Scriptures and
the Confessions; and

WHEREAS, Such a condition would be in manifest vio-
lation of Article III1 of the synodical Constitution
which gives as the first object of the Synod “the con-
servation and promotion of the unity of the true faith
(Eph. 4:3-6; 1Cor.1:10) and a united defense against
schism and sectarianism (Rom. 16:17); therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm its past under-
standing of Article VIII C of the Constitution, to wit,
that