LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 396

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

396

STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION

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 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 the
Commission 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.
So it is with the Synod. Resolutions dealing with controverted
issues that are not agreed to by large super majorities of members
of 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 discussion” (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, The witness of Scripture and the early Christian
Church was that “after there had been much debate” (Acts 15:7

2023 Convention Workbook

ESV) on the controverted matter regarding the circumcision of
Gentile converts, a decision was made; and
WHEREAS, Divergent views on a matter can both seek to
faithfully draw upon Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions; and
WHEREAS, The Synod has historically recognized the need for
collegial debate, collaborative decision-making, and consensus
building, enshrining “[t]he example of the apostolic church (Acts
15:1–31)” in the Preamble of its Constitution and by adopting a
process whereby those principles may be observed with respect to
the adoption of doctrinal statements in Bylaw 1.6.2 (b); and
WHEREAS, The Synod in Bylaw 1.6.2 speaks about “seeking to
clarify its witness or to settle doctrinal controversy, so that all who
seek to participate in the relationships that exist within and through
the Synod may benefit and may act to benefit others,” and thereby
offers the possibilities of doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal
statements; and
WHEREAS, Bylaw 1.6.2 (b)(2), with respect to doctrinal
statements, calls for a process that allows for “study and
suggestions” for as much as a year on such “controverted matters”;
and
WHEREAS, Resolutions voted on at Synod conventions, including
doctrinal resolutions, do not inherently allow for debate or
discussion that is described in Acts 15:7 as πολλῆς—much,
multitudinous, plenteous, numerous, a great amount—but instead
are sometimes voted on with little or no debate, even on both
significant and controverted matters; and
WHEREAS, The Synod in Bylaw 3.10.1.4 indicates that “The
Council of Presidents shall carry out such assignments as the Synod
in convention may give to the council from time to time”; therefore
be it
Resolved, That the Council of Presidents (COP) identify
controverted matters as those matters that do not have a two-thirds
(2/3) majority consensus of the COP as determined through a vote
on particular subjects brought up for discussion by any member of
the COP in their meetings; and be it further
Resolved, That such matters that do not produce this two-thirds
(2/3) majority of votes within the COP for any particular taken
position would be placed into a Synod-wide process agreed upon by
a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the COP of not less than a year that allows
for fraternal discussion and edification with respect to the
controverted matter; and be it further
Resolved, That this process would involve discussion face to
face, preferably in-person, or if necessary, through electronic
means, between leaders that reflect the divergent and diverse
positions recognized by the COP’s vote on the matter; and be it
further
Resolved, That these leaders produce a joint document which
clearly states points of agreement as well as any unresolved matters
along with the scriptural and confessional rationale for each
position, presented in a manner that allows for appropriate
theological reflection and study; and be it further
Resolved, That this joint document be disseminated throughout
the Synod to the congregations, pastors, church workers, and people
of the Synod for reflection and study; and be it further
Resolved, That the congregations, pastors, church workers, and
people of the Synod have fraternal discussion using this document
through a process agreed upon by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the
COP; and be it further