# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 21 22 2002_S23
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Since the Synod has the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions, it also had the right to
adopt Resolution 3-01 [of the 1973 convention].
In Resolution 3-01 the Synod approved a document known as A Statement. That
document therefore comes under the provision of New Orleans Resolution 2-12: “That the
Synod reaffirm its position (Resolutions 2-21 and 5-24, Milwaukee Proceedings) that such
statements, insofar as they are in accord with the Scriptures, are, pursuant to Article II of the
Synod’s Constitution, binding upon all its members (cf. also Article VII).”
However, the Synod cannot make A Statement binding upon its members in the same
sense in which the Scripture is binding. Nor can it ask its members to bind themselves to A
Statement in the same manner in which they freely bind themselves to the Lutheran
Confessions.
Resolution 3-01 does not broaden the confessional base of the Synod. It was not
offered as a constitutional amendment. It is to be recognized as a properly adopted
resolution. In it the Synod determined that A Statement defines the corporate position of the
Synod and sets forth the public teaching of the Synod.
The adoption of Resolution 3-01 by the Synod does not bind the individual conscience
any more than any other human document can; only Scripture should bind the conscience.
As Luther stated before the Diet of Worms:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason
(for I believe neither in the Pope nor Councils alone, since it has been established that they
have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me,
and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor
willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me.
Amen.”
To the person troubled in his conscience, the Synod says:
“If a member cannot for conscience sake accept a doctrinal resolution of the Synod, he
has the obligation and opportunity through mutually approved procedure to challenge such a
resolution with a view of 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” (Milwaukee
Resolution 2-21, 1971 Proceedings, p. 119).
Subscription to A Statement cannot be a requirement for membership in the Synod.
However, already at the Cleveland convention in 1962, the Synod resolved “that the Synod
beseech all its members by the mercies of God to honor and uphold the doctrinal content of
these synodically adopted statements” (Cleveland Resolution 3-17, 1962 Proceedings, p.
106). And “to honor and uphold means not merely to examine and study them, but to
support, act, and teach in accordance with them until they have been shown to be contrary to
God’s Word.” (Milwaukee Resolution 2-21, 1971 Proceedings, p. 119).
In response to the question, therefore, the Commission notes that Resolution 3-07A did not adopt “The
Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” and its response as a doctrinal statement of the Synod in
the same manner as the Synod has in the past adopted a number of doctrinal statements, such as A
Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles. The resolution in question did, however, commend
the study “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” and its response “for continued use and
guidance” to build unity in the Synod, using similar terminology to that which has been used to commend
numerous other studies of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
Question 11 b: “Does Resolution 3-07A mean that any member of the Synod who does not abide by, and
follow in practice the CTCR documents referred to in Resolution 3-07A, is in violation of
the doctrinal position of the Synod, or a doctrinal resolution of the Synod?”
71