# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S103 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 103 (congregations, pastors, parish teachers) is theologically divided: and WHEREAS. It is not possible under such circumstances to carry on the work of the Lord effectively and joyously: therefore be it Resolved. That the President and Vice-Presidents of the Synod be directed to conduct a canvass of the Synod’s member- ship to ascertain which members choose to continue to adhere to the Synod’s confession in Article II of its Constitution as well as to its understanding thereof as this is expressed in synodical resolutions; and be it further Resolred. That each member respond in writing on a form to be provided by the President and Vice-Presidents: and be it further Resolved. That said canvass include all individuals who are in any way employed, elected, or appointed to an official position in the Synod and in its Districts: and be it further Resolved. That all who choose to pursue another theology than that which is the Synod’s historic confession be advised by the President of the Synod. who will do so in the name of the Synod, that their membership in the Synod is cancelled: and be it further Resolred. That all who fail to respond be given a second chance to do so and that failure to respond be interpreted as a decision to follow another theology, in which case their membership, too, shall be cancelled: and be it finally Resolved. That the Synod be advised either through its official publications or by special communication of the results of said canvass. Trinity Lutheran Church New Haven, Mo. Orville Meyer. Secretary 3-133 To Distinguish Between Dogma and Theological Opinion WHEREAS, A certain confusion exists in our midst because the concept “doctrine” is understood in various ways: and WHEREAS, The concept “doctrine” is often used with an ambiguity which fails to distinguish between dogma (the teach- ing of the Scriptural Gospel by which alone the saving faith can exist) and theological opinion (points about Christian faith and life not clearly established in Scripture, and in which there may be legitimate differences of opinion); and WHEREAS, Labeling theological opinions as “doctrine” threatens to elevate them to a position which they cannot legitimately hold; and WHEREAS, Labeling dogma as mere theological opinion undermines the necessary orthodox preaching of the Gospel: and WHEREAS, Our Confessions do distinguish between the two (e. g., Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. VII, par. 20): and WHEREAS, The Synod at Denver (Res. 2-24) ‘accepted and commended” such distinctions in the document entitled “A Re- view of the Question ‘What Is a Doctrine?’”’: therefore be it Resolved. That the Synod maintain this distinction with all possible precision: and be it further Resolved. That the Synod uphold within itself the freedom to hold various theological opinions about genuinely open questions: and be it further Resolved. That the Synod hold itself bound to the articles of faith as based on Scripture and expressed in The Lutheran Confessions; and be it further Resolved. That the Synod foster wholesome discussions of controverted matters on the basis of these clear distinctions between dogma and theological opinion, rather than to use the term “doctrine” interchangeably for both: and be it finally Resolved. That the Synod bear with the weak in such dis- cussions, mindful of its own weakness and fallibility. (Twenty-five members of the faculty have recorded a negative vote against this overture and desire this to be reported together with the overture. The reasons for the dissent will be filed with the floor committee.) Faculty Concordia Teachers College River Forest, Ill. Merle L. Radke. Secretary 3-134A To Begin Work on a “20th-Century Formula of Concord” Preamble: In 1580 the authors of the Formula of Concord, attempting under God to resolve the controversies which confronted them in their day. set forth their loyalty to the Scriptures and previously adopted Confessions in Prefaces. first to the entire Book of Concord (Tappert edition. pp. 3—16) and (in 1577) to the Formula of Concord itself (Tappert edition. pp. 501 —503). As we read their account of the reasons for writing these documents, we are struck by the similarity of the con- troversies of their day to those of our own. In the Preface to the Formula, for example. we read: Herewith we again whole-heartedly subscribe this Christian and thoroughly scriptural Augsburg Confession, and we abide by the plain, clear, and pure meaning of its words. We consider this Con- fession a genuinely Christian symbol which al! true Christians ought to accept next to the Word of God. just as in ancient times Christian symbols and confessions were formulated in the church of God when great controversies broke out, and orthodox teachers and hearers pledged themselves to these symbols with heart and mouth. Similarly we are determined by the grace of the Almighty to abide until our end by this repeatedly cited Christian Confession as it was delivered to Emperor Charles in 1530. And we do not intend. either in this or in subsequent doctrinal statements. to depart from the aforemen- tioned Confession or to set up a different and new confession. (Tap- pert edition, pp. 502. pars. 4-5) Shortly thereafter they discussed the serious consequences of the continued controversy in their midst, noting that: The weak in faith, on the other hand. will be scandalized: some will doubt if the pure doctrine can coexist among us with such divi- sions, while others will not know which of the contending parties they should support. After all, these controversies are not. as some may think, mere misunderstandings or contentions about words, with one party talking past the other. so that the strife reflects a mere semantic problem of little or no consequence. On the contrary. these controversies deal with weighty and important matters, and they are of such a nature that the opinions of the erring party cannot be tolerated in the church of God. much less be excused and de- fended. For that reason necessity requires that such controverted articles be explained on the basis of God's Word and of approved writings in such a way that anybody with Christian intelligence can see which opinion in the controverted issues agrees with the Word of God and the Christian Augsburg Confession, and so that well- meaning Christians who are really concerned about the truth may know how to guard and protect themselves against the errors and corruptions that have invaded our midst. (Tappert edition. pp. 502 — 503, pars. 8— 10) We believe that these words very well could have been written about our controversies. Indeed. perhaps they apply to our time with even greater urgency as we look at errors intro- duced by various humanists. historical critics, neoorthodox, universalists, existentialists. evolutionists, charismatics, and others that threaten the very foundation of our faith. These doctrinal errors cry out for resolution! They cannot be ignored. Therefore, in all humility, this resolution is submitted for con- sideration by the delegates to the 1975 convention of the LCMS meeting at Anaheim, with the prayer that it may contribute under God to the writing of a “20th-Century Formula of Con- cord"! WHEREAS. From time to time the Christian church has re- solved controversies and restored unity by speaking to the issues of the time in new creeds and confessional documents: and WHEREAS. These creeds and confessions have never been considered to be new standards of truth but merely apply the Bible to the issues of the day: and WHEREAS. Just as orthodox Christianity was threatened by Arianism in the early church and as true Lutheranism was threatened by crypto-Calvinism and a compromising. unionistic “Melanchthonian spirit’ in the years after the death of Luther.