LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 183

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

theological issue, so the problem still exists. The contributor
could, I suppose, also specify as a condition to the gift the
method for resolving any future dispute, but this would
certainly create a burden on the one who is seeking to make a
ift.
e 4. The congregation can, in deeds, agreements and other
writings, establish for itself conditions which courts would
enforce under the “neutral principles of law” theory. As
. indicated in proposed Res. 5-10A, the Synod favors such a
method. As to disputes which are not clearly covered by the
written provisions established by the congregation, the fore-

going three alternatives would yet be available.
5. Congregations could agree that any dispute (even one as

‘to which there were no theological issues) would be submitted

to binding arbitration. The process for selecting the arbitrators,
for deciding the procedures, and for paying the costs would be
spelled outin detail. All members of the congregation would be
obligated to abide by the decision of the arbitration panel and
not to seek other recourse or to appeal the decision, including to
the civil courts.

6. The congregation could expressly establish that none of
these alternatives are acceptable to it. It would know, of course,
that civil law courts do not decide theological or doctrinal
questions and therefore might, although the congregation
rejects the “majority rules in all events” theory, find forsucha
majority. If, however, no one would ask a civil court to decide
the matter, the problem would continue to fester until it either
heals itself or a sufficient number from one side or the other
give up in frustration or disgust, and leave the congregation to
join another church or none at all, so that the other side
prevails through a process of attrition. Given a certain level of
stubbornness, the disagreement may be prolonged until, merci-
fully, the congregation goes out of existence for lack of support,
in which case much of the efforts and contributions of current
members and their predecessors will be wasted.

A Brief Conclusion

I began with the view that the words “congregational” and
“hierarchical” should not be equated with “good” and “evil.” I
then suggested that certain phrases be considered in place of
those words to help understand the resolution. As a concluding
point, I would like to remind the delegates that, as the
resolution itself makes clear, we are burdened by the semantics
of two fields of endeavor, law and theology. Perhaps if we were
engaged in a debate about the painlessness of cutting away a
“limb,” it would be easier for you to agree or disagree once you
knew whether that term was being applied in the field of
endeavor of medicine or the field of endeavor of arboriculture.
Certainly it would be valuable to know if you were discussing
removing your arm or a branch from a tree in your yard!
Somehow, however, the mysteries of law and theology get in
our way so that when it comes to church polity lawyers find it
difficult to talk with other lawyers (even when all have
carefully studied all the pertinent Supreme Court decisions and
many of the secondary sources), theologians find it difficult to
discuss with other theologians, and it is nearly inconceivable
that lawyers and theologians can discuss the matter with each
other and reach any kind of informed consensus. Those of you
delegates who are neither lawyers nor theologians, then, are
confronted with a major challenge! I hope that my thoughts,
expressed above, will be helpful to you all.

Remarks by Dr. Herbert Mueller
on Res. 5-10A

There are for practical purposes as many types of polity—
polity is how you govern yourself—there are about as many
types of church polity in the world as there are church
denominations. Hardly two of them are identical, and they
range all the way from the purely congregational, where a
small group is able entirely to govern itself without any
concern for anybody else, all the way over to a purely hier-
archical, which is usually construed as a rule by the priesthood,
at least in theological language. There are other types of polity
in between.

We usually prefer to refer to ourselves as having a synodical
polity, and a synodical polity we define as one in which there is.
a heavy emphasis on the autonomy of the congregation. A‘

STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTION 183

polity under which, however, the congregation, in trying to
walk together with others, to pick up the comment made before,
says, “I agree with you that we will walk in this direction or in
that direction, that I’m not going to walk my own way.”

Now that, for instance, refers, as this resolution says, to
what we are going to teach in the church, Article II of the
Constitution. No congregation joining the Synod is any longer
free to teach anything it pleases. It agrees that it’s going to
teach Article II, which is the Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions.

Now, in case law up to this point there have really been only
two types of polity recognized, congregational and hierarchi-
cal. And this is where we have our trouble, because anything
that is not strictly congregational, like the Southern Baptist—
although perhaps that is not even strictly congregational
anymore—if anything is not strictly congregational, the courts
have termed this, “Well, then you have hierarchical dimensions
at least, in your particular polity.” :

The resolution that you have before you, let me assure you,
does not change iin the least the polity of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod. I believe that there is no one who can
claim to be more concerned about emphasizing the congrega-
tional nature, the essentially congregational nature, of our
polity than I have been through the years. But I recognize that
we are walking together, and that means that we enter into
covenant agreements with one another that we honor.

To Establish Standing Committee
on Pastoral Ministry

RESOLUTION 5-11B

Res. 5-13 (TB, p. 119); Overtures 5-48—5-51 (CW,
pp. 224—226) :

WHEREAS, It is beneficial for the Synod in its program
for educating its professional workers that its colleges
and seminaries maintain a close, continuing relation-
ship to coordinate their efforts; and

WHEREAS, Our seminaries are unique, highly special-
ized schools with the one basic objective of training
pastors; and  —

WHEREAS, Special emphasis needs to be given to the
needs of pastoral education; and

WHEREAS, Every effort should be made to insure and
promote the harmonious and supportive relationship
between our programs of seminary and preseminary
education; and

WHEREAS, A President’s Commission on Higher
Education has been approved for review and analysis of
the present system of higher education in the Synod,
and is to be responsible for conducting a feasibility
study for the purpose of identifying short- and long-term
goals for our Synod’s educational program; and

WHEREAS, Major changes in structure are, at times,
expensive to enact and difficult to dissolve; while the
creation and dissolution of standing committees can be
more responsive to immediate needs, and at a lesser
cost; and

WHEREAS, Usual procedure would suggest that major
changes in structure, such as the establishment of a
permanent, elected program board, be considered and
studied in detail by the Commission on Structure prior
to action by the Synod in convention; therefore be it