# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S399
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 399

b. It should also be recognized that the step of issuing a confes-
sional protest may have arisen out of a deep seated frustration that
the concerns and reservations of these individuals and congrega-
tions are not being given the serious consideration that they believe
they deserve within the established structures of the Synod. Their
protest is something 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 in-
tended to preserve and uphold the truth of the Gospel and all its ar-
ticles on which our fellowship in the Synod is based.°

d. Until all 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
Communion 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 pro-
cedures 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.

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 offi-
cials 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 practice open Communion in violation of their com-
mitment 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
resolving 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 agree-
ment on the truth of God’s Word.

Notes

1. LCMS Constitution, Article III, 1 (2004 Handbook of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod).

2. 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 individ-
ual members of synodical congregations (see LCMS Constitution,
Articles V-VI).

3. The questions that appear in this response were formulated by
the Praesidium, not by the CTCR.

4. See Part IT.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-Historical Definition” is printed on page 39 of the 1971
Convention Workbook. The full text of this statement is as follows:

The phrase in statu confessionis probably can be traced back to the Adi-

aphoristic 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 de-

scribe 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...fand] preventing offense to the
weak in faith.” The Formula 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 action of Christian indi-
viduals and groups who have reached the conclusion 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 individ-
ual or congregation is in a state of protest because it holds that a partic-
ular 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 tan-
tamount to the breaking of fellowship. If, however, the circumstances
which called forth the protest are not corrected in due time, the implica-
tion 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 dis-
sent did not exist in the Synod at the time that the CTCR prepared
its statement on “Jn Statu Confessionis.” The first official bylaw pro-
vision for expressing dissent appeared in the 1973 edition of the syn-
odical handbook (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 Handbook of the Synod. Prior to 1973, there-
fore, members of the Synod had no official recourse, through offi-
cially established procedures for expressing dissent, for protesting
the actions or decisions of the Synod in convention.

5. For a helpful historical overview of the use of the term in statu
confessionis, see Albert Collver, “Jn Statu Confessionis: Origins and
Development,” 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 conclusion (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 sta-
tus confessionis with concrete historical examples and discussions on the
topic by prominent Lutheran theologians. Once the historical origins
were discovered, it was assumed that the paper would focus on time-hon-
ored ways to implement status 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 prop-
erty 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
confessionis protest against a church body does not seem to be
a tenable option to those who take the Lutheran Confessions seri-
ously” (35).

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

Adopted April 15, 2005

2007 Convention Workbook