# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S54
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

54 SYNODICAL REPORTS

trans. N. E. Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1966), 94-101.

3 Dr. Francis Pieper, first quoting C. F. W. Walther, writes in
this connection: “‘... Certainly he [the pastor] must, then, have
the right of suspension from the Lord’s Supper in all cases
where he by admittance to the Lord’s Table would knowingly
assist in the commission of a grievous sin and thus become
partaker of the other men’s sin. As emphatically, therefore, as
our old orthodox theologians deny the right of pastors to
excommunicate without the congregation, so emphatically they
defend the pastor’s right to suspend from Communion.’ It
must, however, be kept in mind that the pastor by suspending
does not excommunicate, as many mistakenly have claimed,
but he merely demands postponement of the person’s
communing until the person in question shows signs of
repentance and removes whatever obstacles, according to the
Word of God, forbid his going to Communion.” Christian
Dogmatics, 3:389.

8. Opinion on Ordination Limited as to Time and Place

In a memorandum dated August 12, 1996, the executive direc-
tor of the Board for Higher Education forwarded to the CTCR a re-
quest from the Standing Committee for Pastoral Ministry of the
BHE “... that the CTCR study the possibility of a diaconate min-
istry, its scope, application, relationship to the ordained ministry
and related issues.” In response to a request for classification from
the CTCR committee working on this assignment, the staff of the
BHE formulated this request in this way: “The Standing Committee
for Pastoral Ministry respectfully requests that the CTCR provide a
theological opinion on the concept of an ordained diaconate minis-
terial status (ordination ‘for time and place’).” At its April 1997
meeting the commission adopted the following response to the
above request:

In response to the request of the Standing Committee for Pastoral
Ministry on the question about ordination as to place and time it is the
opinion of the CTCR that the issue was rendered moot by Resolution 3-
07A of the 39th Regular Convention of the Synod which established a
procedure to call and ordain licensed lay preachers to the Ministerium
of the LCMS. This resolution states that such licensed laymen should be
in a program which will lead to being called and ordained to the pastoral
office. It is the understanding of the CTCR that when the Synod has ad-
dressed the issue of ordination restricted to time and place it has not se-
riously considered temporary calls (for example, in the deliberations of
the Lay Worker Study Committee).

Furthermore, it is the opinion of the CTCR that the term “ordain”
and its cognates has been applied only to a tenured call to the pastoral
office and not to auxiliary offices, and that ordinations as to time and
place would be at least terminologically confusing and also undermine
the divinely instituted nature of the office of pastor and its prophetic
character (AC 14).

Adopted April 30, 1997

9. Opinion on Excommunication

In a letter dated Jan. 31, 1997 the chairman of a dispute resolu-
tion panel, at the request of respondents in a pending case, for-
warded to the CTCR three questions “for the consideration of the
CTCR” on the subject of excommunication:

1. “Is a congregation member excommunicated when a church vot-
ers’ assembly recognizes a member's withdrawal from fellowship and
removes his or her name from the congregation's membership list as a
result of such a member joining another congregation that is not in doc-
trinal fellowship?” 2. “Is a congregation member excommunicated
when a church voters’ assembly recognizes a member's withdrawal
from fellowship and removes his or her name from the congregation’s
membership list as a result of such a member refusing to submit to
brotherly admonition and correction when he has erred?” 3. “Is a con-
gregation member excommunicated when a church voters’ assembly
recognizes a member's withdrawal from fellowship and removes his or
her name from the congregation's membership list as a result of such a
member failing to attend church services and partake of the Lord’s Sup-
per?”

At its February 1997 meeting the commission adopted the fol-
lowing resolution in response to the request:

Whereas, It is unclear in each question what the relationship is be-
tween the clause “recognizes a member’s withdrawal from fellowship”
and each “result” clause, i.e., whether the action described in each result
clause is seen as withdrawal from fellowship or as a separate act;

Whereas. It is unclear in each question whether removing a mem-
ber’s name on the one hand, or recognizing a member’s withdrawal on
the other, is one and the same thing, or is understood as excommunica-
tion;

Whereas It is unclear in each question whether the member’s “with-
drawal from fellowship” refers to a voluntary request by this member to
have his/her name removed from the congregation’s membership list,
or whether the action of the voters’ assembly was taken in opposition to
the member's wishes; therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is impossible for the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations to ascertain what the precise questions at issue
are and therefore itis not possible to give an appropriate answer to these
requests.

Adopted Feb. 22, 1997

D. Expressions of Dissent

The Bylaws of the Synod contain a provision for the expression
of dissent from doctrinal resolutions of the Synod. Bylaw 2.39c
states, in part: “If such resolutions are of a doctrinal nature, dissent
is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers, then brought
to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions before finding expression in an overture to the convention
calling for revision or recision” (1995 Handbook, 30). Since the
commission during the past triennium received a number of letters
of dissent to doctrinal resolutions of the Synod, and since it had not
detailed the procedure to be followed in handling such expressions
of dissent, the commission formulated the following policy state-
ment:

When in accordance with Bylaw 2.39c dissent to the doctrinal
position of the Synod is brought to the attention of the CTCR, it
shall be shared with all members of the commission. The execu-
tive committee, at its next meeting, shall assign this dissent to one
of the commission’s standing committees for the preparation of a
recommendation to be presented to the plenary commission. This

' recommendation to the plenary is to include a determination re-

garding whether or not there is sufficient basis in the dissent for
supporting the dissenter(s) claim(s) that the doctrinal position of
the Synod is in need of revision. Upon the commission’s action rel-
ative to the standing committee’s recommendation, its response to
the submission of dissent shall be shared with the dissenter(s) and
reported to the Synod in its convention report.

During the triennium the commission received the following
formal expressions of dissent:

1. Expression of Dissent to 1969 Resolution 2-17 “To Grant Woman
Suffrage and Board Membership”

At its 1995 convention the Synod once again reaffirmed 1969
Res. 2-17 “To Grant Woman Suffrage and Board Membership.”
The Synod resolved “that members of the Synod who are con-
vinced that woman’s suffrage does not lie in the area of Christian
freedom but is contrary to the Word of God, be urged to make use
of the established procedures for expressing dissent (Bylaw 2.39
a)” (1995 Res. 3-05). In August 1996 the commission received a
20 page document from an LCMS pastor in which he expressed
dissent to the Synod’s position on woman suffrage. Approximately
30 pastors of the Synod subsequently submitted their names in ex-
pression of agreement with this document of dissent. In keeping
with the commission’s established procedures for dealing with ex-
pressions of dissent, the document has been assigned to the appro-
priate standing committee of the commission, and consideration of
the dissent will be incorporated in the comprehensive study of the
relationship between man and woman.

2. Expression of Dissent to 1995 Resolution 3-07A “To Establish the
Procedure by Which Laymen Licensed to Perform Functions of the
Pastoral Office Be Called and Ordained into the Ministerium of the
LCMS” :

A faculty member of a synodical university submitted ‘“‘a broth-
erly dissent” to 1995 Resolution 3-07A. In February 1997 the com-