# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S163
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 163

(Bylaw 1.09e). This bylaw was revised in 1981 (Bylaw 1.19e) and again
in 1986 (Bylaw 2.39c), and now exists as Bylaw 1.8 in the 2004 Hand-
book of the Synod. Prior to 1973, therefore, members of the Synod had
no official recourse, through officially established procedures for ex-
pressing dissent, for protesting the actions or decisions of the Synod in
convention.

. For a helpful historical overview of the use of the term in statu confes-
sionis, see Albert Collver, “In Statu Confessionis: Origins and Develop-
ment,” Logia XIV, 2 (Eastertide 2005), 29-38. According to Logia,
“This paper was originally presented at the Chicago Free Conference
sponsored by Consensus, at Apostles Lutheran Church, Melrose Park,
Illinois, 22 October 2004” (29). The first paragraph of Collver’s conclu-
sion (page 35) reads as follows:

The issues surrounding in statu confessionis are not as simple
Or easy as One might first think. When research for this paper began,
it was thought that it would be relatively easy to establish the
Lutheran origins of status confessionis with concrete historical ex~
amples and discussions on the topic by prominent Lutheran theolo-
gians. Once the historical origins were discovered, it was assumed
that the paper would focus on time-honored ways to implement sta-
tus confessionis, should the need arise. What we found instead was
four hundred years of silence. Much of what was assumed about
status confessionis either could not be supported by the data or was
entirely lacking in data. The term itself is ambiguous and open to
bending and redefinition as the speaker and hearer see fit. The term
is no longer associated (if it ever was) with the Lutheran Confes-
sions, but, thanks to Karl Barth and others, has become common
property with the Reformed and, as such, does not have a precise
usage. This causes one to wonder if the term is helpful to the
Lutheran Confession.

“In light of the foregoing,” Collver goes on to conclude, “‘a status con-
fessionis protest against a church body does not seem to be a tenable
option to those who take the Lutheran Confessions seriously” (35).

. See the CTCR reports “Guiding Principles for the Use of A Statement
of Scriptural and Confessional Principles with Special Reference to the
Expression of Dissent” (November 1973) and “Report on Dissent from
A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” and Other Doc-
trinal Resolutions of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod” (Septem-
ber 1974), which can be found online at www.lcms.org/ctcr. See also
1971 Res. 2-21 “To Uphold Synodical Doctrinal Resolutions” (1971
Convention Proceedings, 117).

A Minority Opinion on Jn Statu Confessionis: A Response
to Questions from the Praesidium of the Synod

The majority document lamentably confuses divine and human
obligations, resulting in the false “even-handedness” of Question 4,
point f.: “the approach taken in dealing with those who declare them-
selves in statu confessionis with the Synod and refuse to commune dis-
trict or synodical officials should be the same approach taken in dealing
with those who ignore or oppose the Synod’s position on close(d) Com-
munion and thus choose to practice open Communion in violation of
their commitment to the Synod.” In other words, those who do their
solemn duty to the evangelical truth, by refusing church fellowship to
public errorists, must be “punished” in the same way as those who vio-
late the truth by “open communion”! By contrast, we need an approach
which will recognize the absolute priority of God’s truth over all human
regulations or so-called “‘covenants of love.”

The expression “state of confession” is based on the Tenth Article of
the Formula of Concord, which, however, speaks not of a “state” but of
a “case” (FC SD X, 2) or a “time” (par. 10) of confession. The basic
issue is the absolute primacy of the divine, evangelical truth in the
church, as the following excerpts from Article X of the Formula show:
[No compromise even in adiaphora (indifferent things) may be ac-
cepted] “in a period of persecution and a case of confession, especially
when the adversaries are attempting either by force and coercion or by
surreptitious methods to suppress the pure doctrine and gradually to in-
sinuate their false doctrines into our churches again” (par. 3, Tappert,
611).

“We believe, teach, and confess that at a time of confession, as
when enemies of the Word of God desire to suppress the pure doctrine
of the holy Gospel, the entire community of God, yes, every individual
Christian and especially the ministers of the Word as the leaders of the
community of God, are obligated to confess openly, not only by words
but also through their deeds and actions, the true doctrine and all that
pertains to it, according to the Word of God” (par. 10; Tappert, 612).

“When Peter and Barnabas in a similar situation yielded to a cer-
tain extent, Paul criticized them publicly because they had not been

straightforward about the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2:14)...Here [in the
matter of Christian liberty] we are dealing primarily with the chief arti-
cle of our Christian faith, so that, as the apostle testifies, the truth of the
Gospel might be preserved (Gal. 2:5)” (par. 13-14; Tappert, 613).

In the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope...we find the
following statement: ‘‘No one should assume lordship or authority over
the church, nor burden the church with traditions, nor let anybody’s au-
thority count for more than the Word of God” (par. 21; Tappert, 614).

In the recent history of the Missouri Synod this issue arose in con-
nection with church fellowship between the LCMS and The American
Lutheran Church, entered into in 1969. By 1977 great differences in
doctrine had become evident between the two synods. The CTCR sug-
gested: “Option III: Declare that the LCMS is now in a state of protest-
ing fellowship with the ALC. Such a state of protest, as the CTCR stated
in a 1970 document, ‘is not tantamount to the breaking of fellowship. If,
however, the circumstances which called forth the protest are not cor-
rected in due time, the implication is that the protest will lead to the sev-
erance of fellowship relations’” (1977 Convention Workbook, 44). Note
also this: A state of protesting fellowship “would allow pastors and con-
gregations of the Synod to practice fellowship with the pastors and con-
gregations of the ALC whom they have found to be in agreement in
doctrine and practice with the position of the LCMS, wherever this can
be done without giving offense” (1977 Workbook, 44). The convention
accepted this suggestion, re-affirmed it in 1979, and formally broke fel-
lowship with the ALC in 1981.

It is basically ‘‘protesting fellowship” that people have in mind
today when they enter into a formal “state of confession.” The basic
idea is to refuse church fellowship to stubborn persistent defenders of
the error or errors specified, while avoiding a hasty or premature break-
ing of fellowship with the Synod as a whole. First all reasonable steps
must be taken to correct the perceived error(s). Our German sister
church’s (SELK) leading dogmatician, the late Dr. Wilhelm Oesch,
wrote that a state of confession involves “not exchanging pulpits with
those of one’s own church body who propagate or support error...not
participating in the celebration of Holy Communion with errorists”
(Cited in Albert Collver, “/n Statu Confessionis: Origins and Develop-
ment,” Logia XIV [Eastertide 2005], 34).

The proper response to a “state of confession” is a conscientious ex-
amination of the issue or issues of truth raised in each case. If the protest
is wrong (for example, if someone objects to the Synod’s biblical stand
against women pastors), every effort must be made to convince the per-
son or persons from Holy Scripture, and if that fails, then such person or
persons must be excluded from the Synod. If, on the other hand, the
protest is well-founded in God's Word, then the district and synodical
leaders must make every effort to correct the wrongs. If that cannot be
done, conscientious Lutherans will have to leave the Synod. Bureau-
cratic evasions of the top priority of the evangelical truth will produce
the tragedy deplored in Article XXIV of the Augsburg Confession:
“The bishops were not ignorant of these abuses. If they had corrected
them in time, there would now have been less dissension” (par. 14
[Latin]; Tappert, 57).

Even Karl Barth saw the radical conflict between truth and church
politics: “And thus, in the classical manner, they cry peace where no
peace is, nor can be, nor may be. Thus they recommend subjection to a
‘Church order’ which consists of the declaration of the permanence of
all Church disorder. Thus they want to administer a narcotic to the pas-
tors with their talk of Christ crucified, just when the last of them should
wake from his sleep and rise up at the memory of Good Friday and
Easter” (Karl Barth, The German Church Conflict, in Ecumenical Stud-
ies in History, No. 1, A. M. Allchin, Martin E. Marty, T. H. L. Parker,
eds. [London: Lutterworth Press, 1965], 34).

To conclude with a splendid observation by our Synod’s chief dog-
Matician, Francis Pieper: “All government of the Church which does
not bind the consciences of Christians to Christ’s Word, but to the word
of men, is pseudo-government” (Christian Dogmatics, 2: 394).

Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Marquart
April 19, 2005

A Minority Statement on In Statu Confessionis: A Response to
Questions from the Praesidium of the Synod

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pas-
tors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for
building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the
faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to
the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no
longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about
by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in de-
ceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up