# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S462 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 462 REPORT ON DISSENT REPORT ON DISSENT from A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles and Other Doctrinal Resolutions of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod September 1974 Constitution without following the procedures set down in Article XIV and adds to the contessional base of the Synod: 2. The adoption of “A Statement’ amounts to establishing doctrine by a majority vote contrary to Article Vill C of the Constitution which Provides that ‘all matters of doctrine and conscience shall be de- cided only by the Word of God The Commission on Constitutional Matters has taken objections of this nature under consideration and has rendered a ruling which has been published in The Lutheran Witness. the official organ of the Synod While it 1s not within the province of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations to deal with constitutional issues. the CTCA concurs with the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters and supports especially the Proposal’ offered in the concluding portion of its ruling Since questions regarding doctrinal resolutions and statements have been distressing the Synod at least since 1953 and have contributed to the unrest within the synodica! fellowship. the Commisston on Constitutional Matters will recommend to the 1975 convention the appointment of a spectal com- mittee to dratt a proposed addition to the Handbook in arder to set forth clearly a The status of doctrinal statements as distinguished from the Scrip- tures and the Lutheran Confessions The procedures for adoption of such statements c The procedures for proper expression of dissent and possible revision. (The Lutheran Witness. June 16 1974. p. 24) It should be noted furthermore that many of the communications which express objections to the adoption of A Statement’ on theological grounds fail to indicate the extent and nature of the theological dissent. In several cases explanations for this failure are offered. Some correspondents plead that the demancs of the parish ministry did not permit them to undertake the time-consuming task of preparing a detailed theological critique: some indi- Cate that they would rather share their theological disagreements with ‘A Statement” with those who have the immediate supervision of their doctrine. some flatly declare that they do not recognize the authority of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations to require a detailed state- ment of their reasons for dissent: still others even voice the suspicion that the CTCR request tor a clarification of their theological objections to A Statement’ 1s intended to entrap them Atter eliminating those communications which oppose the adoption of “A Statement” on constitutional grounds and those communications which fail to specify the nature of their theological objections to A State- ment.” there remain about 50 communications which have been very helpful in the preparation of this theological evaluation of "A Statement On behalf of the Synod. which throughout its entire history has paid Serious attention to matters of doctrine. the Commission on Theology and Church Relations expresses sincere appreciation to all who. out of their own genuine concern for sound doctrine. carefully studied “A Statement’ and candidly shared both their positive and negative reactions. On the basis of REPORT ON DISSENT FROM A STATEMENT OF SCRIPTURAL AND CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLES AND Other Doctrinal Resolutions of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod |. Survey of Materials Received At the time when this report is being prepared, about 575 communi- cations expressing objections to the adoption of A Statement” by the New Orleans convention of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod (Resolu- tion 3-01, Convention Proceedings, 1973, pp. 127-128) have been received by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Most of these expressions of dissent came trom pastors; some came from parochial school teachers; several came from professors at synodical schools: a few came from pastoral conferances. congregations, church councils, and individual lay people The receipt of each of these communications was acknowledged with the promise that, following their careful and serious consideration, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations would make a report to the Synod It should aiso be noted that in response to a request of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations staff, 38 Districts submitted information about the action of their District conventions relative to the adoptidn of A Statement’ by the New Orleans convention of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod. Fifteen Districts report that no specific action was taken by their conventions directly pertaining to “A Statement.” Nine Districts adopted resolutions supportive of A Statement.’ Four Districts will request the Anaheim convention of the Synod to reconsider Resolution 3-01 of the New Orleans convention, and ten Districts will urge that Resolution 3-01 be rescinded. In no case. however, did Districts asking the Synod to reconsider or rescind Resolution 3-01 do so on the basis of any specific doctrinal objections to ''A Statement.” At the outset it should be noted that most of the communications addressed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations oppose the adoption of “A Statement’ on constitutional grounds. The two major con- stitutional objections are the following 1. The adoption of “A Statement" in effect amends Article It of the these responses this report will identify the major areas of disagreement with and/or misunderstanding of the theological formulations of A State- ment. Ul. General Criticisms Some criticisms of “A Statement” of a more general nature should be noted first A. OMISSIONS AND INADEQUACIES ‘A Statement’ is faulted for omitting some topics and for failing to treat others adequately. For instance. topics not treated at all are the first use of the law. the sacraments. and liturgical forms. A topic not explicitly tfeated is the work of the Holy Spirit. Had “A Statement’ been intended to offer an exhaustive presentation of the entire body of Christian doctrine and an exhaustive discussion of Christian ethics such a criticism would be under- standable. The expressly declared purpose of “A Statement.” however, was to assist in identifying areas which may need further attention in terms of the Synod’'s doctrinal position. In other words. ''A Statement’ focused on issues in controversy and. therefore. quite naturally omitted topics which do not require special attention at the present time. One may as wel! fauit the Apostles’ Creed for not including in the Third Article a lengthy exposition of the Holy Spirit's work in the justification and sanctification of the sinner or criticize Melanchthon for not treating every topic of Christian doctrine in his Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.” 8. IMBALANCE ‘A Statement’ is criticized for its ‘imbalance.’ Much more space is given to the section that deals with Holy Scripture than to the section which confesses Christ as Savior and Lord. While it is inconceivable that even the most limited discussion of Lutheran theology should omit a confession of Christ's saviorhood and lordship. it is nevertheless in the very nature of the case that in a document addressed principally to issues in controversy those topics concerning which there is disagreement should receive more detailed treatment than others. Most of the disagreements in the Synod center in questions pertaining to the inspiration. inerrancy, and authority of the Scriptures. If “A Statement” is to serve the purpose of identitying areas of the Synod’s theological position which need further clarification. it is simply inevitable that disputed points receive the most attention. WI. Specitic Criticism Besides these criticisms pertaining to the whole scope and format of “A Statement.” other more specific strictures have been made against each of the six parts of “A Statement.” In the interest of fairness it ought to