LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1973, Page 114

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

114 RESOLUTIONS

The very purpose of a vote in connection with doctrinal
statements is precisely to determine how many “unani-
mously” (with one mind) agree with them and how
many do not — it is never the purpose of a vote to vali-
date a doctrinal statement. Nor do doctrinal statements
come into being and finally get adopted by negotiating
a position acceptable to everyone. When it comes to
accepting doctrinal statements the only factor that Lu-
therans, who take seriously their commitment to the
Scriptures and the Symbols, dare take into considera-
tion is whether or not such statements “are in accord
with the aforementioned pattern of doctrine.”

If they “are in accord with the aforementioned pat-
tern of doctrine” the church must accept and use doc-
trinal statements especially in times of controversy for
the purpose of restraining contentious men who spread
dissensions, in order to afford guidance to troubled and
confused Christians, and for the sake of posterity.

The authors of the Formula of Concord prepared
their doctrinal statement because they thought that “the
most acute and urgent necessity demands that in the
presence of so many intrusive errors, aggravated scan-
dals, dissensions, and long-standing schisms a Christian
explanation and reconciliation of all of the disputes
which have arisen come into being . . . so that the way
may not be left free and open to restless, contentious
individuals, who do not want to be bound to any certain
formula of pure doctrine, to start scandalous controver-
sies at will” (emphasis added; Pref. to Book of Concord,
Tappert, p.13). Because controversies always “involve
serious offense” for the weak in faith, some of whom
“will doubt if the pure doctrine can coexist among us
with such divisions, while others will not know which
of the contending parties they should support . . . ne-
cessity requires that such controverted articles be ex-
plained on the basis of God’s Word and of approved
writings” (502—503:710) in order that ‘fa correct ex-
planation and direction might be provided for simple
and pious hearts, so that they might know what attitude
to take toward these differences” (Pref. Book of Con-
cord, Tappert, p. 6). The Formula of Concord was writ-
ten to give a public testimony not only to those then
living, but also to posterity concerning that which is
and must remain the position of our churches with ref-
erence to the controverted issues (FC.SD Antitheses,
16—German) because the fathers did not want it to
happen that “nothing beyond uncertain opinions and
dubious, disputable imaginations and views will be
transmitted to future generations” (Pref. Book of Con-
cord, Tappert, p. 13). On the contrary, they earnestly
desired “that a pure declaration of the truth might be
transmitted to . . . posterity” and therefore they exer-
cised great care that “the Christian doctrine set forth
in [their] explanation . . . might be fortified with the
Word of God against all sorts of perilous misunder-
standing, so that no adulterated doctrine might in the
future be hidden thereunder.” (Pref. Book of Concord,
Tappert, p. 7)

Melanchthon asked the church of his day a question
which the LCMS should ponder well in these trying

times: “How many do you think there are ... who have
begun to doubt because of the controversies that have
arisen on the most important questions? How much
silent indignation is there because you refuse to examine
these questions and adjudge them rightly, because you
do not strengthen wavering consciences ... ?” (201:
127)

Through the centuries the following words of ad-
monition and warning ought to strike our ears and
hearts in all the earnestness with which they were ori-
ginally addressed by Melanchthon to a decadent church
in the 16th century: “In these very serious and difficult
controversies the people desperately want instruction in
order to have a sure way to go.... You will some day
have to give account of your stewardship.” (281—282:
4—5)

Resolution

Wuereas, The Lutheran church ever since Augsburg
(1530) has reserved to itself the right to interpret and
explain its confessional position over against aberra-
tions of every sort; and

Wuereas, The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
from the beginning of its history did in times of con-
troversy adopt doctrinal statements declaring the Syn-
od’s position on the basis of Scripture and the Con-
fessions relative to controverted issues; and

Wuereas, Such right and obligation is intrinsic to
commitment to a confessional position and is inherent
in the Synod’s commitment to the confessional base
stipulated in Article II of the Synod’s Constitution; and

Wuereas, The very concept of a Synod (“walking
together”) precludes individualism which allows every
man to interpret Synod’s confessional position accord-
ing to his own subjective preference; and

Wuereas, The Synod as recently as 1971, at its Mil-
waukee convention, has reafirmed “the desirability of
the formulation of doctrinal statements which clearly
set forth the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and apply
them to issues of our day” (Milwaukee Proceedings,
Res. 5-24); and

Wuereas, The Synod at the same convention has
asked the church to “honor and uphold” such doctrinal
statements and has interpreted “honor and uphold” as
meaning “not merely to examine and study them but to
support, act, and teach in accordance with them un-
less they have been shown to be contrary to God’s
Word” (Milwaukee Proceedings, Res. 2-21); therefore
be it

Resolved, That the Synod recognize it as fully in ac-
cord with precedent established by our fathers both
in the period immediately following the Reformation
and in the early years of our Synod’s history to pro-
duce and adopt statements of doctrine which apply the
teachings of Scripture and the Confessions to contro-
verted issues; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod understand Article II of
its Constitution as permitting, and at times even re-