LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 299

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
Resolved, That we urge congregations and pastors, as members
of the Synod, who are practicing “online” or “virtual” Communion
to cease this fellowship divisive practice, and that pastors who
previously practiced “online” or “virtual” Communion publicly
repent of this practice.
Pastors’ Conference
Wyoming District
Ov. 5-20

To Create True Synod-Wide Dialogue and Study
with Respect to Celebration of Lord’s Supper in
Homes during Online Worship
Preamble
In the Preamble to the Constitution of the Synod, two reasons are
given “for the forming of a Synodical Union: (1) the example of the
apostolic church (Acts 15:1–31)” and “(2) our Lord’s will that the
diversities of the gifts should be for the common profit (1 Cor. 12:4–
31).” Clearly, the framers of the Synod Constitution were convinced
that unhindered, open discussion of controverted matters, leading to
God-pleasing consensus, is an important basis for the existence of
our church body. Further, they recognized that the Holy Spirit gives
gifts to his people in diverse ways. Those diverse gifts are good for
the church! Yet, such differences in giftedness may themselves lead
to differences in perspectives in issues facing the church,
necessitating the process recounted in Acts 15:1–31.
An analysis of the relatively recent history of the Synod shows at
least three examples of the Synod engaging processes of discussion
and consensus-building around controverted matters that proved
wholesome to our life together in the Synod. In 1991, The
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) produced
a document entitled “Inter-Christian Relationships: An Instrument
for Study,” which sought widespread discussion of the concepts
contained therein and provided forms for feedback to CTCR as it
continued to consider the topic. In 2009, prior to the 2010 Synod
convention where significant structural changes would be
considered, the task force responsible to report to the convention
held regional conferences where the concepts could be introduced,
questions asked, the merit of the proposals discussed, and feedback
given to the task force prior to proposals being set before a Synod
convention. In the early years of the past decade, the Koinonia
Project strove to gather pastors around theological issues for the
purpose of discussion and agreement. In each case, members of the
Synod were given ability to discuss matters of importance and
potential controversy in an unfettered, non-threatening environment
where no final decisions were being made. In many cases, this
environment fostered greater understanding among participants and
often greater consensus among them.
The reason for processes like these does not escape congregational
leaders, ordained or lay. When, for instance, a church desires to
embark on a building program, surveys are completed, forums are
held, plans are floated and discussed, all in an attempt to build
widespread consensus around the program before a vote is cast to
begin the project. This sort of collaborative, collegial process is
necessary to elicit broad-based support for the project from the
congregation. No leader wants a project like this, or a vote of any
significance for that matter, to be adopted by a slim majority. Strong
super-majorities are required to prevent unnecessary division that
could seriously impede the congregation’s mission.

299

So, it is with the Synod. Resolutions dealing with controverted
issues that are not agreed to by large super majorities of members
of the Synod are divisive. They prevent us from walking together—
the very definition of a Synod. Whichever side loses the vote may
well be convinced that they have not been heard and that the
resolution is being foisted upon them, potentially filling the
constituents of that perspective with resentment and resistance. This
resolution puts forward a process whereby members of the Synod
can be involved in “much debate” (Acts 15:7 NIV) of controverted
matters. This discussion is designed to occur prior to those issues
coming to a national convention, where historically relatively few
individuals have the opportunity to debate the issue for relatively
short, and sometimes non-existent, periods of time. Its objective is
to help the Synod walk together in greater consensus and unity.
WHEREAS, On April 21, 2005, the Texas District president made
the CTCR aware of a congregation’s use of a DVD to provide the
words of consecration in a celebration of the Lord’s Supper and
asked the following specific questions: (1) did they violate any
doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Altar?, (2) further
concerns would be, should this practice be encouraged?, (3) would
it not erode the safeguarding of the Sacrament?, and (4) a further
question would be is the consecration of the elements by DVD
valid?; and
WHEREAS, The CTCR offered an opinion on Feb. 18, 2006, that
did not specifically answer questions (1) and (4), but did however
discourage the practice on the basis that the questions themselves
were asked, to wit: this request itself illustrates, the practice
described above has raised and, if perpetuated, would surely
continue to raise questions and doubts about whether Christ’s
Supper was being celebrated in complete faithfulness to His own
instructions and example. This practice, therefore, certainly cannot
be condoned or encouraged; and
WHEREAS, The CTCR on March 20, 2020, in a document titled
“Communion and Covid-19,” offered opinion and guidance to
certain Communion practices being considered and/or implemented
by congregations in response to the inability to worship together in
a single place, the ability to worship together online, and their desire
to celebrate the Sacrament; and
WHEREAS, In “Communion and Covid-19,” the CTCR drew
upon their Feb. 18, 2006, opinion; and
WHEREAS, Neither of the above documents addressed online
Communion in its current technological context and with
procedures designed accordingly; and
WHEREAS, In response to the CTCR’s “Communion and Covid19,” a document began circulation among pastors and
congregations of the Synod titled “Communion in Homes During
Times of Crisis: Scriptural and Confessional Principles” that was
offered in the spirit of fraternal discussion and edification; and
WHEREAS, During Holy Week of 2020, the CTCR responded to
“Communion in Homes During Times of Crisis: Scriptural and
Confessional Principles” with an addendum to “Communion and
Covid-19” titled “One little word can fell him”; and
WHEREAS, In “One little word can fell him,” the CTCR similarly
seeks fraternal discussion and edification, and in that same spirit
offered ten reasons to support their earlier conclusions that
“Lutheran churches should refrain from online Communion
services as described therein.”; and

2023 Convention Workbook