# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S89
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 89

WuerREAS, The third resolve, “That the Synod recognize
that the matters referred to in the second resolved are in fact
false doctrine running counter to the Holy Scriptures .. . and
for that reason ‘cannot be tolerated in the church of God, much
less be excused and defended’ ”’; and

WHEREAS, Holy Scripture in fact teaches two points of view
concerning the “detail in the life of Jesus” as to the listing of the
temptation accounts (cf, Matt. 4:4-10, different from Luke
4:3-13), and the Scripture in fact teaches two points of view
concerning who asked Jesus to sit on the right and left hand
of Jesus when He is King (details in the life of Jesus) (cf. Matt.
20:20, different from Mark 10:35); and

WHEREAS, We cannot substantiate which of the accounts is
correct, it is imperative that we allow the two views to prevail
as the Holy Spirit allowed them to be written; and

WHEREAS, The second and third resolve of Resolution 3-09
goes beyond the authority and clarity that Scripture itself
teaches; therefore be it

Resolved. That the Synod recant its adoption of New Orleans
Resolution 3-09.
Mount Olive Lutheran Church
Chicago, Ill.
Charles Lorenz, President
Gloria Rucinski, Secretary
Norman A. Bumby, Pastor

3-85
To Review Res. 3-09

WHEREAS, We have heard a presentation by our brother and
former interim preacher, Prof. Carl Graesser, in which he
freely answered questions regarding his teachings and opinions
in the present controversies; and

WHEREAS, Many in our Synod ascribe to him—and pre-
sumably to many of his colleagues — opinions and motives which
we believe he sincerely disavows; and

WHEREAS, The remarkably ungentle characterization ‘not
to be tolerated in the church of God” seems to us inappropriate
to his intended motives and possibly to the opinions themselves
and to have been rendered by many on the basis of inaccurate
understanding of either; therefore be it

Resolved, That we request our Synod to review both its
blanket ascription of false doctrines to the former Concordia
Seminary faculty and the manner of its phrasing, in light of
Gal. 6:1; and be it further

Resolved. That we request our Synod to reexamine in light

of Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 13; Matt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 11:19; and Acts 5:38-39
the accuracy of its discernment of minority opinion from false
doctrine and the recent methods of proceeding against holders
of minority opinion.

Christ Lutheran Church

Belmont, Mass.

Edward Kast, Pastor

3-86A

To Reaffirm New Orleans
Resolution 3-09

WHEREAS, The constitutionality of the Synod’s adoption of
New Orleans Resolution 3-09 has been questioned by some in
our church; and

WHEREAS, The Synod’s Commission on Constitutional
Matters has on May 17, 1974, issued the following opinion with
reference to Resolution 3-09:

Even though the language of Resolution 3-09 seems to be con-
fusing at times, the Commission, which has already ruled earlier on
Resolution 3-09, would state once again that the Synod has the right
to adopt doctrinal resolutions and in such resolutions to reject certain
doctrinal positions.

Resolution 3-09 rejects what has been referred to as a “faculty
majority position.” It is the responsibility of the Board of Control
of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, to determine which individuals fall
‘under the judgment of Resolution 3-09 and what kind of action needs

to be taken. Beyond that point, avenues of appeal are still available
to those to whom the judgment of the resolution may be applied.
Resolution 309 therefore does not do violence to the Constitution
and Bylaws of the Synod. Its implementation, however. has been
made difficult, perhaps even impossible. by the withdrawal of most
faculty members:

therefore be it

Resolved. That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
assembled in convention at Anaheim, Calif., July 1975, reaffirm
New Orleans synodical convention Resolution 3-09.

Trinity Lutheran Church
Scarsdale, N. Y.

Geo. VanCleave, President
Robt. Palmer-Smith, Secretary

Identical or similar:

3-86B to 3-86Q

Zion, Big Springs, Nebr.
Emmanuel, Kingfisher, Okla.
Trinity, Enid, Okla.

Trinity, Corona, S. Dak.

Our Savior’s, Pacifica, Calif.
Grace, Bakersfield, Calif.
First, Dinuba, Calif.

St. Paul’s, Selma, Calif.

F. K. Kwirant
V. H. Mickow
Harry Soper
Dennis Brech
John Rische

L. W. Faulstick
H. M. Sorensen
H. M. Sorensen

Trinity, Paso Robles, Calif. L. L. Brack
Zion, San Luis Obispo, Calif. D. Poganski
Our Savior, Pinole, Calif. Conrad Coyner
Shepherd, Kernville, Calif. A. T. Lewis
Our Savior, San Jose, Calif. T. W. Polster

C. W. Keturakat
Milan Nesko Sr.
Julius Kimpel

St. Luke, Santa Rosa, Calif.
Calvary, Medford. N. J.
St. Paul’s, Paterson, N. J.

3-87A
To Reaffirm Resolution 3-09

WHEREAS. The Synod effectively addressed itself to serious
doctrinal matters via Res. 3-09 at our New Orleans convention;
and

WHEREAS, Res. 3-09 still speaks to the theological issues that
are a great cause for concern and actually divide our Synod
today; and

WHEREAS. Res. 3-09 is based completely on the Holy Scrip-
tures and the Lutheran Confessions; therefore be it

Resolved. That the Synod in convention assembled reaffirm
and uphold Res. 3-09 of the 1973 New Orleans synodical conven-
tion.

Mount Hope Lutheran Church
Casper, Wyo.

Richard Means, President
Dennis Burwell, Secretary

J. B. Brown, Pastor

Identical or similar:

3-87B
Immanuel, Grand Forks, N. Dak. Neil Schmidt

3-88
To Use Constitutional Provisions
for Charges

WHEREAS, The Constitution of our Synod makes provision
for “finding the truth, providing for justice, safeguarding the
welfare of the Synod, and wherever possible effecting recon-
ciliation in all cases of disagreement, accusation, or contro-
versy”’; and

WHEREAS. The structures for such peace efforts are the
Commissions of Adjudication and the Board of Appeals on the
District level and on the synodical level: and

WHEREAS, The majority of the former faculty at Concordia