# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S162
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

162

It is our understanding that certain pastors and congregations are
using the phrase in statu confessionis at this time to describe their rela-
tionship to the Synod in light of their conviction that the Synod has
taken actions that are contrary to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Con-
fessions. They thus see themselves in a state of protest over against the
Synod. What is new in the history of the use of this phrase is that now a
group of pastors and/or congregations within a single church body such
as the Missouri Synod enter into a state of protest with the church body
of which they themselves are members. This would seem to imply sev-
eral actions:

First, the announcement of such confessional protest signals an un-
willingness or a steadfast refusal to implement or follow those resolu-
tions adopted by the Synod in convention with which they disagree.

Second, those issuing such a protest see the resolutions to which
they object as being of such magnitude as to constitute persistent pro-
motion and defense of false doctrine on the part of the Synod and its
officials.

Third, notice is thereby given that during this interim period of
protest they will refuse Communion to synodical and district officials,
pastors, and congregations who support these synodically adopted ac-
tions unless and until they repent.

Fourth, it appears on the one hand that the declaration of in statu
confessionis is intended to serve as a warning that unless the Synod re-
verses itself and matters are rectified, amended, or rescinded, these
protesting pastors and congregations will feel compelled to sever their
membership in the Synod. On the other hand, it may be that they do not
intend to leave the Synod but to form a church defined by a particular
confession within the institutional structure of the Synod (as appears to
be happening, for example, with the church of Sweden and more re-
cently, the Word Alone Network within the ELCA).

(3) “What are the implications of such a state of confessional protest,
especially with regard to the ongoing membership in the Synod of the
protesting congregation or individual member?”

The issuing of a state of protest calls into question the desire of
these pastors or congregations to remain members of the Synod on two
counts. First, the agreements for how we operate together as a Synod
do not include provisions for issuing a confessional protest as a way of
dealing with disagreements about doctrine and practice. Second, the
suspension or withholding of Communion to fellow members of the
Synod is by definition a severing of church fellowship (theologically
speaking), regardless of one’s institutional affiliation or membership. If
these pastors and congregations are consistent, it should be assumed
that they take the same position regarding every member of the Synod
that has not joined them in their protest.

(4) “What counsel should be offered to a district president of the Synod
in response to a congregation or individual member of the Synod en-
tering a state of confessional protest in his district?”

a. District presidents should note and commend these individuals
and/or congregations for their desire to be faithful confessors of God’s
Word within the church and world. A confessional church is always a
confessing church in both word and deed.

b. It should also be recognized that the step of issuing a confessional
protest may have arisen out of a deep seated frustration that the con-
cers and reservations of these individuals and congregations are not
being given the serious consideration that they believe they deserve
within the established structures of the Synod. Their protest is some-
thing of a final attempt, short of leaving the Synod, to draw attention to
their concerns.

c. The district president should strongly urge that the individual
member and/or congregation follow the synodical procedures for the
expression of dissent that they agreed to follow in becoming members
of the Synod as an alternative to—or a stage prior to—taking the more
drastic step of declaring themselves to be in a state of confessional
protest. The synodical procedures for dissent are intended to preserve
and uphold the truth of the Gospel and all its articles on which our fel-
lowship in the Synod is based.

d. Until ali avenues for working towards resolving matters between
the Synod and the congregation and/or individual member of the Synod
have been exhausted, none of the parties involved should refuse Com-
munion to each other. Resolving such issues often takes a great deal of
time. A confessional protest should not be entered into hastily.

e. The refusal of certain pastors or congregations to honor their
agreements with fellow members of the Synod by following the proce-
dures for dissent, along with their persistent refusal to commune fellow
members of the Synod, will lead a district president to work with them
until the issue in contention is brought to a God-pleasing resolution so
that the unity of the faith may be maintained.

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

f. It is also important to be consistent in dealing with those who
stand on both sides of the line. That is to say, the approach taken in
dealing with those who declare themselves in statu confessionis with
the Synod and refuse to commune district or synodical officials should
be the same approach taken in dealing with those who ignore or oppose
the Synod’s position on close(d) Communion and thus choose to prac-
tice open Communion in violation of their commitment to the Synod.

Conclusion

We submit this response to the Praesidium for sharing with the
Council of Presidents in the hope that it will be helpful in dealing
with those individuals and/or congregations that have entered into a
state of protest. In submitting this response, we are not rendering a
judgment on whether or not those who enter into a state of protest
are right or wrong with regard to the positions that they hold. In-
stead, we are encouraging that we work together toward the goal of
confessing together the truth of God’s Word in the Synod, and that
we do so in accordance with our agreed-upon procedures for re-
solving our disagreements. Where those procedures are not work-
ing, we need to find ways of building greater trust in the process of
expressing dissent or develop other ways by which members of the
Synod can express their objections with the goal of arriving at
agreement on the truth of God’s Word.

Notes

. LCMS Constitution, Article III, 1 (2004 Handbook of The Lutheran

Church—Missouri Synod).

. The term “members” of the Synod is used in this response in a formal

and official sense to refer to synodical congregations and ministers of
religion (ordained and commissioned), not to individual members of
synodical congregations (see LCMS Constitution, Articles V-VI).

. The questions that appear in this response were formulated by the Prae-

sidium, not by the CTCR.

. See Part II.A.C (“American Lutheran Church’) of the CTCR’s report to

the 1977 convention on pages 43-45 of the 1977 Convention Workbook.
The CTCR’s statement on “Jn Statu Confessionis: A Theologico-His-
torical Definition” is printed on page 39 of the 1971 Convention Work-
book. The full text of this statement is as follows:

The phrase in statu confessionis probably can be traced back to
the Adiaphoristic Controversy and the Tenth Article of the Formula
of Concord. While the phrase itself is not found in the Formula, the
comparable phrase in casu confessionis does appear. This phrase
was used to describe a case or situation where public confession
concerning the Gospel had become a God-given and inescapable
duty. The Formula indicates that this duty devolves on Christians
when the matter “has to do with the truth of the Gospel, Christian
liberty...[and] preventing offense to the weak in faith.” The For-
mula describes those who by deed and word deny the truth of the
Gospel, destroy Christian liberty, and offend the weak as “enemies
of the Gospel.” At a later date in the history of the Lutheran Church
in statu confessionis came to be used to describe the conviction and
action of Christians who protested, at the risk of life and limb,
words and deeds in opposition to the Gospel and its articles as they
understood them. Used in the sense of the Formula of Concord, the
phrase in statu confessionis would describe the conviction and ac-
tion of Christian individuals and groups who have reached the con-
clusion that the truth of the Gospel and its articles is being perverted
within their church body by those who have become “enemies of
the Gospel.”

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations is not
aware of any synodically approved definition of the term in statu
confessionis for our time. The commission is of the opinion that the
term is quite generally employed in the current usage of our church
to declare that an individual or congregation is in a state of protest
because it holds that a particular teaching, practice, or action of the
church against which the protest is lodged is contrary to the Word of
God or endangers the Gospel. Used in this sense, the declaration
that one is in statu confessionis is not tantamount to the breaking of
fellowship. If, however, the circumstances which called forth the
protest are not corrected in due time, the implication is that the
protest will lead to the severance of fellowship relations. (Adopted
by the CTCR, April 1970)

It is significant to note that formal procedures for expressing dissent did
not exist in the Synod at the time that the CTCR prepared its statement
on “Jn Statu Confessionis.” The first official bylaw provision for ex-
pressing dissent appeared in the 1973 edition of the synodical handbook