# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S410 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 410 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS a) An acknowledgment that the expression of dissent has been received by the CTCR, thus fulfilling the bylaw provision (1.8.2) that “dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed first within the fel- lowship of peers and then brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding expression as an overture to the convention call- ing for revision or recision.” b) A printed copy and brief explanation of the CTCR’s in- ternal policy for handling dissent (see point 2 below). c) Any additional information or clarification deemed nec- essary in order to help the dissenter(s) understand what it means to “express dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements” and how this process works in the Synod in light of current bylaw provisions and guidance given in other synodical resolutions and documents (e.g., CTCR re- ports on the expression of dissent). Dissenters should be informed, if necessary, that their dissent should clearly identify the specific resolution(s) or statement(s) of the Synod to which they are dissenting and identify the Scrip- tural and/or confessional basis for their dissent. 2. Expressions of dissent from the doctrinal position of the Synod shall be handled internally by the Commission as follows: a) The expression of dissent shall be shared with all mem- bers of the Commission no later than the next meeting of the Commission. b) The Executive Committee shall assign the expression of dissent to a standing committee (or committees) of the CTCR for the preparation of a recommendation to be presented to the plenary Commission. c) If the standing committee(s) should determine that the intended expression of dissent is not, in fact, dissent from the official, doctrinal position of the Synod, this shall be reported to the plenary Commission and com- municated to the dissenter(s) (see point 3b below). An intended expression of dissent may, for example, reflect a misunderstanding about the actual position of the Synod, or express concern about the way in which the official position and/or practice of the Synod is (or is not) being implemented in the life of the Synod (e.g., is- sues that might be most appropriately dealt with by those entrusted with doctrinal supervision). d) If the standing committee should determine that the dis- sent submitted is dissent from the doctrinal position of the Synod, the committee’s recommendation to the ple- nary is to include a determination regarding whether or not there is sufficient basis in the dissent for supporting the dissenter’ s(’) claim(s) that the doctrinal position of the Synod is in need of revision. e) The recommendation shall also include an explanation or presentation of the theological basis for this determi- nation. The precise nature of this presentation (e.g., length, specificity, argumentation, etc.) is to be deter- mined on a case-by-case basis in light of such factors as the nature and content of the dissent itself, the signifi- cance of this issue in the life of the Synod as a whole, additional or related dissent(s) regarding this issue, etc. 3, Upon the CTCR’ s action relative to the standing committee’ s rec- ommendation, the Commission’s response to the submission of dissent shall be handled as follows: a) It shall be shared promptly with the dissenter(s), along with a letter from the CTCR staff offering any informa- tion deemed necessary to help the dissenter(s) under- stand the nature and purpose of the CTCR’s response in the context of the synodical guidelines offered in Bylaw 1.8 and the CTCR’s own internal policies. b) Responses to dissent from the doctrinal position of the Synod will be reported to the Synod by placing them on- 2007 Convention Workbook line and including them in the CTCR’s report to the next synodical convention. Adopted May 2, 2006 Notes 1. As 1971 Res. 2-21 points out, “The Synod is irrevocably com- mitted to the Sola Scriptura principle.” At the same time, says this resolution, “The Synod maintains that it is not a violation of the Sola Scriptura 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 resolution goes on to say: “Formal commitment of the Synod to a confessional base is pointless unless the Synod has the right as a synod to apply its confessional base definitively to current issues and thus conserve and promote unity and resist an individualism which breeds schism. The Synod holds that a member cannot justly charge the Synod with ‘binding his conscience’ when the Synod, in applying its confessional base to current issues, adopts doctrinal statements which it believes to be in harmony with the Word of God and requires that such resolutions be considered normative for every member. A doctrine of Scripture remains a doctrine of Scripture de- spite the fact that it is formulated in synodically adopted resolutions. If a member cannot for conscience’ sake accept a doctrinal resolu- tion of the Synod, he has the obligation and opportunity through mutually approved procedure to challenge such a resolution with a view to effecting the changes he deems necessary. Failing in that, he is completely free by reason of his wholly voluntary association with the Synod to obey his conscience and disassociate himself from the Synod. Meanwhile every member of the Synod is held to abide by, act, and teach in accordance with the Synod’s resolutions.” The entire text of 1971 Res. 2-21 is included as an appendix to this re- sponse (“Appendix A”). All readers of this response are strongly encouraged to read and/or review this resolution, which articulates in a clear and careful way the relationship between the Sola Scrip- tura principle and the adoption of doctrinal resolutions and state- ments by the Synod. 2. Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (April 2004). Hereafter GPCE. 3. “Unionism” is usually understood as “church-fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine” (Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Po- sition of the LCMS, page 13 [par. 28]), while “syncretism” typically refers to the mixing or mingling of “elements of. ..false religions” (i.e., non-Christian religions) with the Christian religion (see GPCE, 13). “Not at issue here [in GPCE],” says the CTCR, “‘is the participation of LCMS pastors as co-officiants in public worship services convened as a result of civic events or concerns. ..The LCMS has a clear posi- tion against ‘taking part in the services and sacramental rites of het- erodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession’ (LCMS Constitution, Article VI, 2, b.)” (GPCE 7, fn. 8) 4. Church and Ministry, [St. Louis: CPH, 1987], 332. Quota- tions which follow in this paragraph are also from this edition of Church and Ministry. 5. Women in the Church, 37. 6. In its 1985 report Women in the Church (on which the 1994 report The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Of- fices is based) the CTCR states: “God has given to that which has been created a certain definite order which, because it has been cre- ated by Him, is the expression of His immutable will. These rela- tionships belong to the very structure of created existence” (p. 21; see also pages 22-38). 7. Women in the Church, 37. 8. This opinion can be found in APPENDIX B (pp. 27-30) of The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (September 1994) with Guidelines for Congregations prepared by President’s Task Force (January 2005). 9. See the Report of the Lay Worker Study Committee, 1989 Convention Workbook, 69-73. 10. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, [St. Louis: CPH, 1950] 3:439.