# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S401 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 401 While the conscience of the dissenter shall be respected, the consciences of others, as well as the collective will of the Synod, shall also be re- spected. CTCR Policy and Procedures During the past triennium, the CTCR has carefully reviewed and revised its internal process for handling expressions of dissent— primarily as a way of assisting those who make use of this process in understanding more clearly what is involved in expressing dis- sent from the official position of the Synod, and the role that the CTCR plays in this process. The CTCR’s policy for responding to expressions of dissent is attached as “Appendix B” to this docu- ment. The CTCR also encourages all readers of this document to read or review two previous CTCR reports that offer very helpful insight into the history, nature, and purpose of the Synod’s current process for expressing dissent: the CTCR’s 1973 report Guiding Principles for the Use of A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles with Special Reference to the Expression of Dissent and its 1974 Report on Dissent from A Statement of Scriptural and Con- fessional Principles and Other Doctrinal Resolutions of the Synod. Both of these reports are available on line at www./cms.org/ctcr. Issues Not Addressed in this Response Finally, a word is in order about certain issues and concerns that are not specifically addressed in this composite response. First, this re- sponse does not address every expression of dissent received by the CTCR in the past triennium—only (for reasons given in the introduc- tion) those dealing with one or more of the four issues listed in the opening paragraph. Second, this response does not deal with concerns raised by various dissenters regarding issues which the CTCR believes are most properly dealt with through the Synodical process(es) of ec- clesiastical supervision. A number of dissenters, for example, express concerns about Communion practices, fellowship practices, worship practices (etc.) in some synodical congregations which they believe to be contrary to the official position of the Synod. Such concerns may be valid, but they do not constitute dissent from the official position of the Synod on these issues. In fact, it is clear in most cases that the dissenters support the official position of the Synod on these issues. Their concern is that the Synod’s position on these issues is not being properly or consistently honored and upheld by some members of the Synod. Concerns of this nature should be directed to the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. Finally, this response does not address “‘ex- pressions of dissent” from CTCR reports or documents as such (which . do not, in and of themselves, constitute “the official position of the Synod”) nor from opinions issued by the CCM. Questions or concerns about CCM opinions should be directed to the CCM and/or to the Synod in convention. Areas of Dissent 1. Participation in Civic Events (2004 Res. 3-06A; 2001 Res. 3-07A) Background At its 2004 convention, the Synod adopted Res. 3-06A “To Commend CTCR Report on Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events.’ In this resolution the Synod Resolved, That we commend the CTCR’s report, “Guidelines for Par- ticipating in Civic Events” for study to help pastors, teachers, and church workers make decisions about participation in civic events: ¢ That faithfully reflect our unqualified commitment to the absolute truth of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God; ¢ That seek to take full advantage of every legitimate opportunity to pro- claim clearly in the public realm that “only in and through Jesus do we have the definitive revelation of the true and only God,” that God “is known as Father and Savior only through Spirit-wrought faith in Jesus Christ,” and that “only the Triune God—-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is the ob- ject of our worship and the hope of our salvation” (GPCE, p. 8); ¢ That honor and uphold the free and willing commitments we have made with one another by virtue of our membership in the Synod; * That demonstrate concem and sensitivity for how participation (or non-participation) in civic events may be perceived by those inside and outside of the LCMS; and * That recognize that “clarity in doctrine and practice and charity in our dealings with one another are both essential to the church’s life and witness” (GPCE, p. 23). In its first “Whereas,” 2004 Res. 3-06A makes reference to 2001 Res. 3-07A, which commended “for continued use and guidance” the study materials prepared by President Barry and the CTCR on The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship and their “Report on Synodical Discussions.” The “Report on Synodical Discussions” included paragraphs on “Cases of Discretion” that of- fered guidelines for participation in civic events by LCMS pastors and rostered church workers. The CTCR’s April 2004 report on Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events was prepared in re- sponse to a November 2001 request from the Synod’s president to clarify “what constitutes a civic event” and to address explicitly questions about the “participation of LCMS pastors, teachers, and church workers in ‘civic events’ ...which also involve participation from non-Christian religions.” Concerns and Arguments of Dissenters The CTCR has received several expressions of dissent from 2004 Res. 3-06A and/or 2001 Res. 3-07A. As can be seen from the following quotations, these expressions of dissent are rooted pri- marily in concerns about permitting or encouraging “unionism” and “syncretism”: We dissent from 2004 Res. 3-06A (commending the CTCR document, “Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events”) because the document does not unambiguously forbid the participation of LCMS pastors in syncretistic and unionistic services.... Instead, the majority opinion al- lows for participation in joint prayer services by claiming that Christian and non-Christian clergy could “take turns” offering prayers (“serial” prayers) without it being joint worship. [We dissent from] 2001 Res. 3-07A (commending the CTCR document, “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship”) because it is be- ing used—contrary to its original intent—to give approval to LCMS pas- tors participating in syncretistic and unionistic service [sic] because they were “offering prayers, speaking and reading Scripture at events spon- sored by governments.” I call -for rescission [sic] of 2004 Res. 3-06A (commending the CTCR document, “Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events”) because the commended “Guidelines” do not unambiguously forbid unionistic participation, but may lead to more of it with the concept of “serial prayer.” I call for the rescission of 2001 Res. 3-07A (commend- ing the CTCR document, “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fel- lowship”), even though the document itself is sound, because the Resolution is being used contrary to its original intent...to give approval to unionistic activity, claiming that it was permissible involvement in government sponsored events. I am writing to inform you of my dissent with any interpretation of 2001 Resolution 3-07A that allows for public prayer of Christians in association with pagan prayers. This would be a clear departure from “the historic position” of our Synod. CTCR Response The principal concern in these expressions of dissent is that the Synod, with the adoption of 2001 Res. 3-07A and 2004 Res. 3-06A, has either implicitly or explicitly condoned and/or encouraged the practice of “unionism and syncretism” in certain situations. The terms “unionism” and “syncretism” appear to be used synonymously in these expressions of dissent to refer (at least primarily) to “joint prayer and worship” with adherents of non-Christian religions? In response to this concern, it should be noted first of all that one of the reasons singled out by the Synod in 2004 Res. 3-06A for com- mending the CTCR’s report on GPCE is that it ‘‘addresses, on the 2007 Convention Workbook