# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S398
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

398 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

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

Introduction

The first objective listed among the reasons for the formation of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in 1847 is that the Synod,
“under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions,” shall:

Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor.

1:10), work through its official structure toward fellowship with other

Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense against schism,

sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy.!

In recent years congregations and pastors of the Synod, seeking
to be faithful to this biblical mandate to uphold right teaching in the
Synod, have declared themselves to be “in a state of confession” (in
statu confessionis) as a way of expressing protest over against ac-
tions taken and resolutions adopted by the Synod itself. As a result
of discussions of this topic by the Council of Presidents and the
Praesidium of the Synod, questions have been directed to the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). In response,
the CTCR presents the following summary overview of the use of
the term in statu confessionis down through history and offers some
suggestions as to how the members of the Synod’ may carry out—
in an edifying way—the biblical and confessional mandate to hold
fast to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is taught in the Scripture and
rightly confessed in The Book of Concord.’

(1) “What are the theological confessional and/or historical principles

on which such a protest of in statu confessionis may be declared?”

The phrase “in a state of confession” (in statu confessionis) does
not have a consistent meaning (much less a common definition)
within the Lutheran tradition. It is possible to detect at least three
general interpretations and uses of this concept from the time of the
Reformation to the present.

First, the Formula of Concord uses in casu confessionis (not in statu
confessionis), by which it means that there are moments or situations
when adiaphora cease to be adiaphora (temporarily) and become acts
of confession. Such was the case in the wake of the Smalcald War,
when the emperor (left hand realm) attempted by force of arms to bring
the Evangelicals back under the obedience of the pope through the re-
imposition of Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies upon the Evan-
gelical churches (right hand realm). Against this governmental
intrusion into the church and the government’s subsequent persecution
of Lutheran pastors, Lutherans found it necessary to enter a state of
protest against the emperor. A parallel situation can be found in the
nineteenth century when the King of Prussia (left hand realm) forcibly
merged the Lutherans and Reformed into a Union Church and imposed
upon it a common liturgy and common confession that compromised
the Lutheran confession. Some of the forbearers of the Missouri Synod
found themselves forced to leave for the sake of confession. In both of
these situations, the government (left hand realm) sought to impose a
practice or policy upon thechurch that necessitated the church’ s protest.

Second, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the
phrase in statu confessionis underwent some redefinition and expan-
sion. Now the church issued a protest not against policies imposed by
the government upon the church, but against governmental policies
within the state. Before and during World War II, for example, Chris-
tians in Germany (Reformed and Lutheran) declared themselves to be
in statu confessionis with the state as it engaged in practices of ethnic
cleansing within society. Since then, church bodies within the
Lutheran World Federation have also employed this phrase not as way
of protesting the intrusion of the left hand realm into the right hand
realm, but as a protest against social, racial, and foreign policies
adopted by governments around the world. Perhaps the most notable
of these policies was apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s.

Third, the phrase in statu confessionis has been used exclusively
within the context of the right hand realm. For example, the phrase
has occasionally been employed to express a protest over against
another church body. In fact, it appears in this sense during the

2007 Convention Workbook

break-up of the Synodical Conference. Another notable example of
this usage of the phrase occurred in 1969 when the Evangelical
Lutheran Synod of France and Belgium announced a provisional
suspension of fellowship with the Missouri Synod. In a similar man-
ner, the Missouri Synod entered into a state of protesting fellow-
ship with the American Lutheran Church in 1977, making use of a
definition of in statu confessionis given by the CTCR in 1970."
More recently, this phrase has been used by individuals and/or
congregations within church bodies as a means of protesting cer-
tain positions and actions adopted by their parent church body and
which the protestors believe are contrary to the Scriptures.°

(2) “What does it mean for a member congregation of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod to declare that it is in statu confessionis
or in a state of confessional protest against the synod?” Again,
“How does the same question pertain to an individual member of
the Synod who declares such a state of confessional protest?”

It is our understanding that certain pastors and congregations are
using the phrase in statu confessionis at this time to describe their
relationship to the Synod in light of their conviction that the Synod
has taken actions that are contrary to the Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions. 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 mem-
bers. This would seem to imply several actions:

First, the announcement of such confessional protest signals an un-
willingness or a steadfast refusal to implement or follow those reso-
lutions 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
promotion 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 offi-
cials, pastors, and congregations who support these synodically
adopted actions 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
reverses 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 par-
ticular confession within the institutional structure of the Synod (as
appears to be happening, for example, with the church of Sweden and
more recently, 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. Sec-
ond, the suspension or withholding of Communion to fellow mem-
bers 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 mem-
ber of the Synod entering a state of confessional protest in
his district?”

a. District presidents should note and commend these individu-
als 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.