# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1977_S156 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 156 RESOLUTIONS Resolved, That also LCMS congregations whose pastors and teachers claim membership in the LCMS and the AELC be urged to request such pastors and teachers to disaffiliate with the AELC since such identification with and support of the AELC is in conflict with the Constitution of the LCMS (Art. III, 1), which congregations, pastors, and teachers have signed and thereby agreed to uphold; and be it further Resolved, That those who have terminated their membership in the LCMS be urged and invited by this convention to meet with whomever they choose— individuals, congregations, District or synodical officers—in order to reconsider their action and to return; and be it finally Resolved, That the Synod in convention share this resolution with all congregations, pastors, and teachers involved with the AELC, and also address them with a pastoral letter which expresses the Synod’s earnest desire to communicate with them, to meet with them, to discuss with them, to pray with them, and hopefully to resolve the issues which have divided our fellowship, so that we may again “praise with one voice the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6). Attachment: Why Are New Synods Needed? 1. The theology which governs the present Missouri Synod Mission board and staff is described in the Commission on Theology and Church Relations’ review of the Mission Affirmations. While affirming the Affir- mations, the CTCR destroys their intent. Verbal proclamation is separated from the “living”, active word. The goal is “little Missouri Synods” rather than people free in Christ. (See the Appendix for Jim Mayer’s critique of the CTCR’s The Mission of the Christian Church in the World.) 2. Synod’s leaders are moving ever further away from real fellowship with other Lutherans. The Missouri Synod is slowly withdrawing from the Lutheran Council in the USA (LCUSA). It has not actively pursued the 1969 Denver resolution of fellowship with The American Lutheran Church. At least two of its large districts, Michigan and South Wisconsin, have called for ter. minating that fellowship. The CTCR document, A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism recommends further withdrawal and even limits pastors and in- dividuals. (See excerpts in the Appendix.) 3. The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) continues to churn out rulings and position statements. These pronouncements support the Preus ad- ministration’s narrow theology and give ever more power to the administration. And Commission rulings are binding unless overturned by a Synodical conven- tion. 4. Dr. Preus, the Commission on Constitutional Matters, and the Colloquy Board continue to refuse to accept graduates of Seminex into Missouri’s ministerium— unless they capitulate. Graduates are accepted by some districts, but their ministries and their personal lives are being destroyed by constant harassment. 5. The theology of A Statement of Scriptural and Con- fessional Principles continues to dominate the Missouri Synod. A Statement is non-Lutheran and borders on non-Christian because it establishes criteria other than faith in Christ for salvation—dangerously suggesting that faith in the Bible is essential for salvation. 6. The Missouri Synod is prepared to go to court if necessary to enforce its decisions. The cost to contest this litigation would be phenomenal—and at least two years of restraining orders against district officers and board and continued bad press before the world. Missouri Synod lawyer, Philip Draheim, publicly stated that the Missouri Synod is prepared to attach personal assets of officers and board members who actively resist. Peaceful “confessional disobedience,” therefore cannot be practiced for long. , (AELC “Resources for Congregations,” p. 2) Action: Adopted as amended (1). (In presenting Res. 5-01 the committee updated the numbers in the 5th whereas as of July 11, 1977, and supplied the three names for the special committee. It also inserted into point 4 of the third resolve the words “where conversations... imminent resolution.” Res. 5-01 and Res. 1-01 were both read to the convention. It was then moved and seconded to adopt Res. 5-01. An amendment was adopted to insert in point 3 of the third resolve the words: “‘as well as those who have refused ministry by their District President.” After the question had been called by the required 2/3 vote, Res. 5-01 as amended was adopted. Thereupon Res. 1-01 was also adopted.) To Accept into Membership Certain Congregations RESOLUTION 5-02A Overtures 5-04—5-06 (CW, p. 174); Overtures 5- 117U, 5-119U, 5-120U, 5-121U, 5-122U (TB, pp. 17, 18, 189) WHEREAS, The following’ néwly organized con- gregations have applied for membership in the Synod: Carmel Lutheran Church, Carmel, Ind.; Heritage Lutheran Church, Valparaiso, Ind.; Christ Lutheran Church, Brownsburg, Ind.; Redeemer Lutheran Church, Lawrence, Kans.; Concord Lutheran Church, Prairie Village, Kans.; Our Savior Lutheran Church, Great Bend, Kans.; Ascension Ev. Lutheran Church, Corunna, Ont.; Our Savior Lutheran Church, Center- ville, Tex.; Christ Lutheran Church, Jacksonville, Tex.; Our Savior Lutheran Church, Whitney, Tex.; Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, McMinnville, Tenn.; and Messiah Lutheran Church, Salem, Oreg.; and WHEREAS, Their constitutions have been approved by their respective District constitution committees; therefore be it Resolved, That these congregations be accepted into the Synod (Handbook 1.01); and be it further Resolved, That the signing of the Constitution take place at the conventions of the respective Districts, in accordance with Section 1.03 of the Handbook; and be it finally Resolved, That in those instances where con- gregations have come into existence through internal differences, all involved minister to one another so as to live and work together in love and peace. Action: Adopted (11). (In Session 7 an amendment was offered to delete the three Kansas congregations and to refer their application to the Kansas District. This was declined. After further discussion involving also the congregation in Salem, Oreg., the resolution was recommitted to Committee 5. After having received further information, Committee 5 shared this information with the convention and resubmitted its resolution in Session 11. An amendment was again declined to remove the names of the three Kansas congregations. The resolution was then adopted as presented by the committee.)