# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S408
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

408 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

its ministries by employing extraordinary means, for example, the
Nothilfern (emergency helpers—pastors for special circumstances)
in its early years.” And it also reported the results of its consulta-
tions with the Synod’s partner churches in their use of lay ministers
and “lay evangelists.”?

At the same time, the CTCR underscores its awareness that “dis-
cussion will and needs to continue regarding the nature of these ex-
ceptions.” These discussions are currently taking place in a variety
of ways and forums in the Synod: e.g., among (and between) the
members of both seminary faculties, on the DELTO committee, on
the Board for Pastoral Education, at meetings of the Pastoral For-
mation Summit, within the CTCR, on the Council of Presidents, etc.
This issue will undoubtedly be discussed also at the 2007 conven-
tion of the Synod, and it is the Commission’s hope and prayer that
all of these discussions will be helpful in “placing these issues in
proper historical context, clarifying the precise points of contro-
versy, identifying areas of past and present agreement and dis-
agreement, providing the opportunity for the fraternal exchange of
viewpoints, and making progress toward greater consensus”(CTCR
Minutes, December 2005) in the Synod on this issue.

The CTCR does not believe that 2004 Res. 5-09 pertains to the
issue of “laymen performing functions of the pastoral office.” It
seems clear that the term “ministry” in this resolution is used in a
broader sense to include “every form of the preaching of the Gospel
or administering the means of grace,” including “forms of ministry”
carried out “by Christians in general, as originally entrusted with
the means of grace and commissioned to apply them’’’ The intent
of this resolution is to “affirm the role of laity in expanding the mis-
sion of the church and recognize the need further to equip layper-
sons for mission work,” with appropriate assistance and resources
from the Council of Presidents, the Board for Pastoral Education,
and the seminary faculties. It does not have to do with laymen per-
forming the distinctive functions of the pastoral office. In the
CTCR’s opinion, therefore, the dissenters’ objections to Res. 5-09
are based on a misunderstanding of what this resolution actually af-
firms and encourages.

To summarize: The CTCR agrees with the dissenters that the
teaching and practice of the Synod with regard to the performance
of the distinctive functions of the pastoral office must conform to
the Scriptural teaching set forth in AC XIV and other pertinent pas-
sages of the Lutheran Confessions. The CTCR recognizes, how-
ever, that “the LCMS has understood that the Lutheran Confessions
(Treatise 67-68, Tappert 331) recognize that there may be situations
where those who are not called and ordained may carry out pastoral
functions.” The CTCR also recognizes that “discussion will and
needs to continue regarding the nature of these exceptions.”

Conclusion

The Commission strongly and sincerely commends all those to
whom this response is directed for the time and care they have taken
to express their sincere convictions regarding positions of the Synod
that they believe to be contrary to the Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions. As noted in the introduction to this response, the
Synod has made provision for such dissent precisely because it be-
lieves that synods, councils, theologians, church leaders (etc.) can
err, and that God’s Word alone is and must remain the only rule and
norm for our “walking together” in the Synod in faithfulness to
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

As is evident from this response, the expressions of dissent to
which the Commission has responded above differ not only in terms
of the various issues they address but also in terms of the nature of
their argumentation. Many of the expressions of dissent, in the
Commission’s opinion, are correct in what they affirm about the
teaching of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, but they mis-
understand in crucial ways what the position of the Synod actually
is on a given issue. In these cases, the Commission has attempted
to offer assistance by clarifying the position of the Synod on the is-
sues in question. Other expressions of dissent reflect a proper un-
derstanding of the position of the Synod on a given issue, but (in
the Commission’s view) fail to make the case, based on Scripture

2007 Convention Workbook

and the Lutheran Confessions, that the Synod’s position is in error
and is need of revision or rescission. In these cases, it is incumbent
on the dissenters to provide clear evidence, based on Scripture and
the Lutheran Confessions, that the position of the Synod is in error.
Still other expressions of dissent are directed toward “interpreta-
tions” and/or “applications” of the Synod’s position and not toward
the position of the Synod itself. As has been noted in the Commis-
sion’s response, questions of interpretation are most properly di-
rected to the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters, while
concerns about improper application(s) of the Synod’s position are
to be directed to the appropriate doctrinal supervisor. This, too, is
part of our “walking together” according to the (humanly-instituted)
“covenants of love” which we have agreed to honor and uphold as
members of the Synod. Finally, as the CTCR’s response makes
clear, many of the expressions of dissent make good and valid points
that should be seriously considered by the Synod as it reviews
and/or revises the policies and procedures that serve our “walking
together” in the Synod.

This response is offered, finally, with the sincere prayer that God
would richly bless all of our efforts to remain completely faithful
to His inspired and inerrant Word and to the Lutheran Confessions
as a true exposition of that Word, and that He would also empower
us by His Spirit to “walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave Him-
self up for us” (Eph. 5:2). ’

Appendix A

1971 Resolution 2-21 To Uphold Synodical Doctrinal
Resolutions

Preamble

The Synod holds that “the Word of God shall establish articles
of faith and no one else, not even an angel” (Tappert, p. 295:15) and
that “the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Tes-
taments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines
and teachers alike must be appraised and judged” (Tappert, p.
464:1). Accordingly the Constitution of the Synod prescribes (Ar-
ticle VIII, C) that “doctrine shall be decided only by the Word of
God.” (Cf. Constitution, Article II, 1; VII; Bylaw 1.09 b.) The
Synod is irrevocably committed to the Sola Scriptura principle.

The Synod maintains that it is not a violation of the Sola Scrip-
tura principle when it adopts doctrinal resolutions, for the Synod in
such resolutions does not presume to establish doctrine, but intends
only to confess doctrines taught by the Scriptures.

The Synod affirms that a doctrine is a doctrine because it is con-
tained in the Scriptures. The Synod, therefore, rejects the opinion
that a doctrine taught by the Scriptures and confessed by the Synod
becomes binding upon its members only if and when it is unani-
mously approved. Rather, the Synod holds that a doctrine must be
unanimously accepted because it is clearly taught in Scripture.

The Synod acknowledges that a resolution which declares every
synodically adopted doctrinal statement (past and future) binding
upon its members is unconstitutional (1962, 6-01). Theoretically,
at least, such a resolution might bind its members to doctrines taught
neither by the Scriptures nor by the Confessions. This would in ef-
fect amend Article II of the Constitution by extending the confes-
sional basis beyond the Bible and the Symbols. The Synod,
accordingly, recognizes that doctrinal resolutions stand under the
norms of the Scripture and the Symbols. This being the case, any
resolution which is found to be in conflict with these norms must
be regarded as null and void, and must be rescinded by the Synod.

The Synod, nevertheless, holds that its confessional base is as
broad as Holy Scripture, and that provided a doctrinal resolution is
in fact in harmony with the Word of God, which is “the only rule
and norm of doctrine,” the content of such a resolution is intrinsic
to the Synod’s confessional basis. Therefore such a resolution does
not have the effect of amending Article II of the Constitution, but
simply invokes Paragraph | of Article II. It is fully in accord with
Article II of the Constitution to insist that such a resolution has bind-