# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S402 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 402 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions...the errors and dangers of unionism, syncretism, and universalism.” It should be emphasized, secondly, that this resolution contains a clear and unqualified statement forbidding joint prayer and worship with non- Christians: Wuereas, The CTCR’s report clearly states that “We understand and accept that Lutheran pastors may not under any circumstances partici- pate in joint prayer or worship together with clergy of non-Christian re- ligions, even in events that may be portrayed as primarily or partially ‘civic’ in nature and purpose. By ‘joint prayer or worship’ we mean wor- ship activities that assume, and falsely so, that Christians and non-Chris- tians may actually join together in ‘worshiping the same God’ apart from a common faith in and confession of Jesus Christ. According to Scrip- ture, acceptable, efficacious, and God-pleasing prayer and worship are possible only through faith in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son and the world’s only Savior.” (GPCE, pp. 14~15) Any “interpretation,” therefore, of 2004 Res. 3-06A, 2001 Res. 3-07A, or the CTCR’s report GPCE that claims that they condone or encourage joint prayer and worship with non-Christians is con- tradicted by the clear language of these documents themselves. Contrary to the claim or perception of at least some of the dissenters, joint prayer and worship with non-Christians are clearly forbidden by the Synod “even in events that may be portrayed as primarily or partially ‘civic’ in nature and purpose.” Several expressions of dissent presume that the CTCR’s report on GPCE, commended by the Synod in 2004 Res. 3-06A, renders a judgment on whether or not a particular historical event was or was not “a civic event.” The report explicitly states, however: The members of the CTCR are aware of certain events following Sep- tember 11, 2001, and decisions made about them. The CTCR recognizes that the readers of this document are also aware of them. The CTCR in no way intends to render judgments about the decisions relating to these events and so has attempted to avoid using language and terms in this document that would suggest that it has done so. The Commission there- fore asks the reader to receive this document on its own basis, and not in the light of decisions made about these past events—which would be a misuse of this document. (GPCE, 4) A number of expressions of dissent voice concerns about the concept of “serial prayer” (which is not mentioned in the resolution itself, but discussed by the Commission in GPCE). As the Com- mission itself acknowledges in GPCE: The members of the Commission disagree about the issue of so-called “serial” or “seriatim” prayers involving representatives of different re- ligious (Christian and/or non-Christian) groups or churches. Some mem- bers of the Commission believe that under no circumstances is it permissible for LCMS pastors to participate in any type of event in which various Christian and/or non-Christian leaders “take turns” offering prayers, holding that such an activity by its very nature constitutes “joint prayer and worship.” The majority of the Commission believes that in some instances it may be possible and permissible for LCMS pastors to participate in such an event as long as certain conditions are met (e.g., when the purpose of the event in question is clearly and predominately civic in nature, and when it is conducted in such a way that does not cor- respond to the LCMS understanding of a ‘‘service”; when no restrictions are placed on the content of the Christian witness that may be given by the LCMS pastor; when a sincere effort is made by those involved to make it clear that those participating do not all share the same religious views concerning such issues as the nature of God, the way of salvation, and the nature of religious truth itself.) (19) While this report acknowledges disagreement within the Com- mission about the issue of so-called ‘serial’ or ‘seriatim’ prayers,” there is no disagreement or ambiguity in this report about the per- missibility of “joint prayer and worship” with non-Christians under any circumstances—which is clearly the central concern of those dissenting from 2004 Res. 3-06A. The Commission goes on to state: It should be noted in this connection that all members of the Commis- sion agree that, understood from a Christian perspective, prayer is al- ways in some sense “an expression of worship.” The question is whether it is possible under any circumstances for an LCMS pastor to offer a 2007 Convention Workbook prayer in a public setting involving a variety of religious leaders with- out engaging in “joint prayer and worship.” Some believe this is not pos- sible. The majority believes that it may be possible depending on such factors as how the event is arranged and understood and how the situa- tion is handled by the pastor in question, in order to make it clear that “joint prayer and worship” is not being conducted or condoned. (20) Finally, several dissenters express disagreement to particular “interpretations” or “uses” of a synodical resolution or CTCR re- port commended by it. It is difficult to know how to respond to such “dissent,” since Bylaw 1.8.2 makes provision for “dissent from doc- trinal resolutions and statements,” not from particular “interpreta- tions” or “uses” of a doctrinal resolution or statement. Questions about the proper interpretation of a synodical resolution should be submitted to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Concerns about the improper use or application of a synodical resolution should be directed to the appropriate doctrinal supervisor. To summarize: the Commission agrees with the dissenters that “joint prayer and worship” with non-Christians must not in any way or under any circumstances be condoned or encouraged in the Synod. It does not believe, however, that the dissenters have pro- vided evidence to show that this is what the Synod has done with the adoption of 2004 Res. 3-06A and/or 2001 Res. 3-07A. 2. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution (2004 Res. 8-01A; 2004 Res. 7-02A) Background At its 2004 convention, the Synod adopted Res. 8-O1A “To Amend Bylaws on Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolu- tion.” This resolution amended in various ways the synodical pro- cedures for “Restricting, Suspending, and Expelling Congregations or Individuals from Membership” in the Synod, as well as the process for synodical dispute resolution. Three primary issues sur- face in the dissenters’ various objections to this resolution (and, in one instance, to 2004 Res. 7-02A): 1. The requirement that “the guidelines of Matt. 18:15 be followed” as part of the synodical procedure for restricting, suspending, and/or ex- pelling individuals and/or congregations from membership in the Synod—even if “the alleged violation is considered ‘public.’” 2.The membership of “hearing panels” established in the bylaws adopted under 2004 Res. 8-01A, which are currently composed only of district presidents. 3. The status of opinions rendered by the CCM and/or the CTCR in cases of dispute resolution or removal from office. Concerns and Arguments of Dissenters The first issue listed above (the use of “the guidelines of Matthew 18:15’) is a matter of concern for several dissenters, and is summarized well in the following statement from one of the ex- pressions of dissent received by the Commission: The bylaws adopted under 2004 Res. 8-01A require that a face-to-face meeting must precede any and all public rebuke of a public sin such as teaching false doctrine (which would be a cause for expelling a mem- ber from the Synod). Citing Matthew 18:15, the new Bylaw 2.14.3(c) asserts that the face-to-face meeting is a biblical requirement that must be carried out also in “public” cases—despite biblical counterexamples such as Gal. 2:1 1 ff. and the affirmation of the Lutheran Confessions that “where the sin is so public that the judge and the whole world are aware of it, you can without sin. . . testify publicly” concerning the offender (Large Catechism | 284). Thus, under 2004 Res. 8-01A our Synod has adopted bylaw material which flies in the face of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Another dissenter expresses the same concern in the following “whereas” of a resolution submitted as a form of dissent: WHEREAS, by the passage of Resolution 8-01 A and in its implementation as the new Bylaw 2.26 of the Synod’s constitution and bylaws, the Synod has 1. ignored the Word of God and the practice, example and admonition of our Lord Jesus Christ, Saint John the Baptizer and Saint Paul the Apostle in dealing with those who have committed public sin;