LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1977, Page 156

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

156 RESOLUTIONS

Resolved, That also LCMS congregations whose
pastors and teachers claim membership in the LCMS
and the AELC be urged to request such pastors and
teachers to disaffiliate with the AELC since such
identification with and support of the AELC is in
conflict with the Constitution of the LCMS (Art. III, 1),
which congregations, pastors, and teachers have
signed and thereby agreed to uphold; and be it further

Resolved, That those who have terminated their
membership in the LCMS be urged and invited by this
convention to meet with whomever they choose—
individuals, congregations, District or synodical
officers—in order to reconsider their action and to
return; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod in convention share this
resolution with all congregations, pastors, and teachers
involved with the AELC, and also address them with a
pastoral letter which expresses the Synod’s earnest
desire to communicate with them, to meet with them, to
discuss with them, to pray with them, and hopefully to
resolve the issues which have divided our fellowship, so
that we may again “praise with one voice the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6).

Attachment: Why Are New Synods Needed?

1. The theology which governs the present Missouri Synod
Mission board and staff is described in the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations’ review of the
Mission Affirmations. While affirming the Affir-
mations, the CTCR destroys their intent. Verbal
proclamation is separated from the “living”, active
word. The goal is “little Missouri Synods” rather than
people free in Christ. (See the Appendix for Jim Mayer’s
critique of the CTCR’s The Mission of the Christian
Church in the World.)

2. Synod’s leaders are moving ever further away from real
fellowship with other Lutherans. The Missouri Synod is
slowly withdrawing from the Lutheran Council in the
USA (LCUSA). It has not actively pursued the 1969
Denver resolution of fellowship with The American
Lutheran Church. At least two of its large districts,
Michigan and South Wisconsin, have called for ter.
minating that fellowship. The CTCR document, A
Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism recommends
further withdrawal and even limits pastors and in-
dividuals. (See excerpts in the Appendix.)

3. The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
continues to churn out rulings and position statements.
These pronouncements support the Preus  ad-
ministration’s narrow theology and give ever more
power to the administration. And Commission rulings
are binding unless overturned by a Synodical conven-
tion.

4. Dr. Preus, the Commission on Constitutional Matters,
and the Colloquy Board continue to refuse to accept
graduates of Seminex into Missouri’s ministerium—
unless they capitulate. Graduates are accepted by some
districts, but their ministries and their personal lives are
being destroyed by constant harassment.

5. The theology of A Statement of Scriptural and Con-
fessional Principles continues to dominate the Missouri
Synod. A Statement is non-Lutheran and borders on
non-Christian because it establishes criteria other than
faith in Christ for salvation—dangerously suggesting
that faith in the Bible is essential for salvation.

6. The Missouri Synod is prepared to go to court if
necessary to enforce its decisions. The cost to contest
this litigation would be phenomenal—and at least two
years of restraining orders against district officers and
board and continued bad press before the world.
Missouri Synod lawyer, Philip Draheim, publicly stated
that the Missouri Synod is prepared to attach personal

assets of officers and board members who actively
resist. Peaceful “confessional disobedience,” therefore
cannot be practiced for long. ,

(AELC “Resources for Congregations,” p. 2)

Action: Adopted as amended (1).

(In presenting Res. 5-01 the committee updated the
numbers in the 5th whereas as of July 11, 1977, and supplied
the three names for the special committee. It also inserted into
point 4 of the third resolve the words “where conversations...
imminent resolution.” Res. 5-01 and Res. 1-01 were both read
to the convention. It was then moved and seconded to adopt
Res. 5-01. An amendment was adopted to insert in point 3 of
the third resolve the words: “‘as well as those who have refused
ministry by their District President.” After the question had
been called by the required 2/3 vote, Res. 5-01 as amended was
adopted. Thereupon Res. 1-01 was also adopted.)

To Accept into Membership
Certain Congregations

RESOLUTION 5-02A

Overtures 5-04—5-06 (CW, p. 174); Overtures 5-
117U, 5-119U, 5-120U, 5-121U, 5-122U (TB, pp.
17, 18, 189)

WHEREAS, The following’ néwly organized con-
gregations have applied for membership in the Synod:
Carmel Lutheran Church, Carmel, Ind.; Heritage
Lutheran Church, Valparaiso, Ind.; Christ Lutheran
Church, Brownsburg, Ind.; Redeemer Lutheran
Church, Lawrence, Kans.; Concord Lutheran Church,
Prairie Village, Kans.; Our Savior Lutheran Church,
Great Bend, Kans.; Ascension Ev. Lutheran Church,
Corunna, Ont.; Our Savior Lutheran Church, Center-
ville, Tex.; Christ Lutheran Church, Jacksonville, Tex.;
Our Savior Lutheran Church, Whitney, Tex.; Shepherd
of the Hills Lutheran Church, McMinnville, Tenn.; and
Messiah Lutheran Church, Salem, Oreg.; and

WHEREAS, Their constitutions have been approved
by their respective District constitution committees;
therefore be it

Resolved, That these congregations be accepted into
the Synod (Handbook 1.01); and be it further

Resolved, That the signing of the Constitution take
place at the conventions of the respective Districts, in
accordance with Section 1.03 of the Handbook; and be it
finally

Resolved, That in those instances where con-
gregations have come into existence through internal
differences, all involved minister to one another so as
to live and work together in love and peace.

Action: Adopted (11).

(In Session 7 an amendment was offered to delete the three
Kansas congregations and to refer their application to the
Kansas District. This was declined. After further discussion
involving also the congregation in Salem, Oreg., the resolution
was recommitted to Committee 5. After having received
further information, Committee 5 shared this information
with the convention and resubmitted its resolution in Session
11. An amendment was again declined to remove the names of
the three Kansas congregations. The resolution was then
adopted as presented by the committee.)