# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S192
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

192 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

Synod’s Blue Ribbon Committee, in its report to the President,
states that “Man-made rules and regulations must not rob the indi-
vidual or the Christian congregation of the freedom we have as
God’s New Testament people” (Blue Ribbon Committee report, p.
1, lines 24-25). It continues, “Much less do humanly-devised struc-
tures such as synods or districts dictate to God’s people. We have
one Master, Christ, and we are each others’ servants.” Further on it
reads, “the entire structure should be marked by openness and re-
sponsiveness to the will of the members” (p. 2, lines 36-37).

We affirm these principles of the BRC and believe that they
should be inherent in our decision-making process as a Synod.

Accordingly, we are convinced that Synod’s process for adopt-
ing doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal statements (Bylaw 1.09)
calls for review and amendment. Currently, the adoption of a doc-
trinal statement involves a lengthy procedure (Bylaw 1.09c) while
a doctrinal resolution can be adopted by a simple majority in any
synodical convention. And both doctrinal statements and doctrinal
resolutions have essentially the same binding force on members of
Synod until they are amended or repealed (Bylaw 1.09b). It seems
that our process of adopting doctrinal resolutions encourages high
risk control methodologies that impose man-made rules and regu-
lations on individual Christians and congregations that usurp their
freedom as God’s New Testament people. Constitutionally (Art.
VID, “No resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the in-
dividual congregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance
with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as
the condition of a congregation is concerned.”

Resolved, that any doctrinal resolution that has a direct bearing
on the life and practice of Synod’s congregations (such as commu-
nion and worship practice), be handled in a manner similar to the
adoption of a doctrinal statement, so as to more accurately reflect
the will of these people. Such a resolution should be submitted to
the congregations for their ratification and shall become operative
if ratified by two-thirds majority of the member congregations
which respond within six months, registering an affirmative vote
on a ballot supplied by the synodical Secretary for that purpose.
Failure to ratify such a resolution makes the resolution inoperative.
This fact should be reported by the Secretary of the Synod through
an announcement in an official periodical.

Our Savior
Morristown, TN

3-130
To Ratify Doctrinal Resolutions

Rationale

In the report to the President of the Synod, the Blue Ribbon
Committee states that “man-made rules and regulations must not
rob the individual or the Christian congregation of the freedom we
have as God’s New Testament people” (Blue Ribbon Committee
report, p. I, lines 24, 25). The report continues by stating (p. 1, lines
31-33), “Much less do humanly-devised structures such as synods
or their districts dictate to God’s people. We have one master,
Christ, and we are each others’ servants.” The report also states (p.
2, lines 36-37) “that the entire structure should be marked by open-
ness and responsiveness to the will of the members.”

Guided by our scriptural and confessional commitment, we be-
lieve that these are underlying principles that should be inherent in
our decision-making process as a Synod. We heartily endorse those
principles.

At the same time it is our conviction that the process we have
developed for the adoption of doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal
statements calls for some review and amendment. (For that process
see 1995 Handbook, 1.09, pp. 19-20) At the present time, for our
Synod to adopt a doctrinal statement, a lengthy and involved pro-
cedure is used. It is described in Bylaw 1.09 c 1-8. At the same
time a doctrinal resolution, which has essentially the same binding
force as a doctrinal statement on the members of Synod, can be
adopted by a simple majority in any synodical convention. The
Handbook states that such resolutions are to be honored and up-

held until such a time as the Synod amends or repeals them (Bylaw
1.09). It seems to us that this system of adopting doctrinal resolu-
tions carries with it the strong risk that a manmade structure such as
a synod can end up imposing manmade rules and regulations on
individual Christians and congregations and rob them of the free-
dom we have as God’s New Testament people. Additionally, this
would seem to be in clear conflict with Art. VII, which states, “No
resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual con-
gregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the
Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condi-
tion of a congregation is concerned.”

Resolved, That to more accurately reflect the will of our peo-
ple, any doctrinal resolution that has a direct bearing on the life and
practice of our congregations (such as Communion and worship
practice), be handled in a manner similar to adopting a doctrinal
statement. Such a resolution should be submitted to the congrega-
tions for their ratification and shall become operative if ratified by
two-thirds majority of the member congregations which respond
within six months, registering an affirmative vote on a ballot sup-
plied by the synodical Secretary for that purpose. Failure to ratify
such a resolution makes the resolution inoperative. This fact should
be reported by the Secretary of the Synod through an announce-
ment in an official periodical.

Board of Directors, Pacific Southwest District; Board of
Directors, Atlantic District

3-131

To Clarify Differences between Lutheran
and Reformed Churches

Wuereas, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America re-
cently declared full fellowship with Reformed church bodies; and

Wuereas, Many Luther4ns in the LCMS make frequent use of
methodologies, books, songs, curricula, and other resources which
were developed from within the Reformed theological tradition;
and

WHEREAS, The dramatic scientific, technological, and demo-
graphic changes that have occurred in this century have profoundly
affected the general worldview and cultural assumptions of people;
and

WHEREAS, Fewer people in this day and age are aware of or
concerned about theological and denominational differences; and

WuerEAS, These and other issues raise with new urgency the
question of Lutheran identity; and

WHEREAS, The church’s true identity is to be found in Christ;
therefore be it

Resolved, That the CTCR prepare a simple explanation for the
laypersons of Synod explaining the fundamental historic differ-
ences between Reformed and Lutheran church bodies and identi-
fying the specific and important contributions made by orthodox
Lutheran Christology to the history of Christian thought; and be it
further

Resolved, That this report also outline and examine develop-
ments since World War II that may or may not have mitigated the
differences between Reformed and Lutheran theology today.

St. John the Evangelist
Brooklyn, NY

3-132

To Encourage Synod in Convention
to Keep the Main Thing the Main Thing

WHEREAS, The most important thing to the life of the church is
to abide in Christ through Word and Sacrament, and confess Him
to the people of this age as true God and true man who suffered for
our sins and was raised for our justification; and

Wuereas, To abide in Christ and confess Him necessarily en-
tails that teachings and practices be clearly opposed and rejected