# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S414
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

414 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

When Peter and Barnabas in a similar situation yielded to a certain
extent, Paul criticized them publicly because they had not been straight-
forward about the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2:14)...Here [in the matter
of Christian liberty] we are dealing primarily with the chief article of
our Christian faith, so that, as the apostle testifies, the truth of the Gospel
might be preserved (Gal. 2:5) (par. 13-14; Tappert, 613).

In the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope...we find the
following statement: “No one should assume lordship or authority over
the church, nor burden the church with traditions, nor let anybody’s au-
thority count for more than the Word of God” (par. 21; Tappert, 614).
In the recent history of the Missouri Synod this issue arose in

connection with church fellowship between the LCMS and The
American Lutheran Church, entered into in 1969. By 1977 great dif-
ferences in doctrine had become evident between the two synods.
The CTCR suggested: “Option III: Declare that the LCMS is now
in a State of protesting fellowship with the ALC, Such a state of
protest, as the CTCR stated in a 1970 document, ‘is not tantamount
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 rela-
tions’” (1977 Convention Workbook, 44). Note also this: A state of
protesting fellowship “would allow pastors and congregations of
the Synod to practice fellowship with the pastors and congregations
of the ALC whom they have found to be in agreement in doctrine
and practice with the position of the LCMS, wherever this can be
done without giving offense” (1977 Workbook, 44). The conven-
tion accepted this suggestion, reaffirmed it in 1979, and formally
broke fellowship with the ALC in 1981.

It is basically “protesting fellowship” that people have in mind to-
day when they enter into a formal “state of confession.” The basic idea
is to refuse church fellowship to stubborn persistent defenders of the
error or errors specified, while avoiding a hasty or premature break-
ing of fellowship with the Synod as a whole. First all reasonable steps
must be taken to correct the perceived error(s). Our German sister
church’s (SELK) leading dogmatician, the late Dr. Wilhelm Oesch,
wrote that a state of confession involves “not exchanging pulpits with
those of one’s own church body who propagate or support error...not
participating in the celebration of Holy Communion with errorists”
(Cited in Albert Collver, “In Statu Confessionis: Origins and Devel-
opment,” Logia XIV [Eastertide 2005], 34).

The proper response to a “state of confession” is a conscientious
examination of the issue or issues of truth raised in each case. If the
protest is wrong (for example, if someone objects to the Synod’s
biblical stand against women pastors), every effort must be made
to convince the person or persons from Holy Scripture, and if that
fails, then such person or persons must be excluded from the Synod.
If, on the other hand, the protest is well-founded in God’s Word,
then the district and synodical leaders must make every effort to
correct the wrongs. If that cannot be done, conscientious Lutherans
will have to leave the Synod. Bureaucratic evasions of the top pri-
ority of the evangelical truth will produce the tragedy deplored in
Article XXIV of the Augsburg Confession: “The bishops were not
ignorant of these abuses. If they had corrected them in time, there
would now have been less dissension” (par. 14 [Latin]; Tappert, 57).

2007 Convention Workbook

Even Karl Barth saw the radical conflict between truth and church
politics: :

And thus, in the classical manner, they cry peace where no peace is,
nor can be, nor may be. Thus they recommend subjection to a “Church
order” which consists of the declaration of the permanence of all Church
disorder. Thus they want to administer a narcotic to the pastors with their
talk of Christ crucified, just when the last of them should wake from his
sleep and rise up at the memory of Good Friday and Easter (Karl Barth,
“The German Church Conflict,” in Ecumenical Studies in History, No.
1, A. M. Allchin, Martin E. Marty, T. H. L. Parker, eds. [London: Lut-
terworth Press, 1965], 34)

To conclude with a splendid observation by our Synod’s chief
dogmatician, Francis Pieper: “All government of the Church which
does not bind the consciences of Christians to Christ’s Word, but
to the word of men, is pseudo-government” (Christian Dogmatics,
2:394).

Respectfully submitted,
Kurt Marquart
April 19, 2005

A Minority Statement in Disagreement with the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
on Its February 16, 2005, Resolution Responding
to the Dissent of the Reverend Anthony T. Bertram
to LCMS 2001 Convention Resolution 3-08B

Having abstained from the original December 2004 response to
Pastor Bertram’s dissent to 2001 Resolution 3-08B, I disagree with
the commission’s February 2005 reaffirmation of the same.

The commission’s reply “updates” Pastor Bertram but does not
adequately respond to his dissent. It serves only to acknowledge that
he has highlighted a real issue of controversy in our Synod which
requires further study.

1989 Resolution 3-05B and 2001 Resolution 3-08B do indeed
appear to conflict with the Scriptural understanding of the doctrine
of the Holy Ministry taught in the Augsburg Confession (Article
XIV, which is rooted in Article V).

It has been said that “a wide variety of positions on the nature
of exceptions to the administration of the sacraments by someone
not called and ordained, as well as the precise meaning of ‘regular
call,’ has existed and continues to exist in the Synod...”

In other words, since 1989 (and perhaps well before that) our
Synod has not been “walking together” on these matters. Far from
moving along the same road or parallel paths, this “wide variety”
of positions appears to be diverging rather than converging.

We must recognize this divergence as a theological crisis within
our Synod. The commission’s pledge to review its own internal pro-
cedures for responding to dissent falls far short of what is needed.
Pastor Bertram’s dissent deserves a much more substantive and
lengthy response. I fervently hope that our seminaries’ theological
faculties will provide the counsel on this issue that our Synod des-
perately needs.

Paul F. Nus
Friday, April 1, 2005