LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 70

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

70

REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

than a delusion.” Walther carefully distinguishes between a
dictatorial rule and that kind of rule and order in the
church when “one sees to it that the regulations which a
communion has voluntarily assumed are observed and carried out. The term for that is ‘serving rule.’ This is what we
want in the Church” (Walther, Essays for the Church, vol.
II, pp. 52ff).
The issue of “control” and “freedom” and the “binding
nature of doctrinal resolutions” is one that also came up before in our Synod’s recent history. Thirty years ago, Dr. J.
A. O. Preus asked in his presidential report to the Milwaukee convention, “Does an evangelical and confessional
church body such as ours have the right and duty to adopt
doctrinal statements which are in complete conformity with
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions—and then expect
her pastors, teachers and professors, out of faithfulness to
Scripture and the Confessions, to believe, teach and confess
according to such statements?” Dr. Preus reported that “In
the past, the answer has been a resounding yes.”
Dr. Preus put his finger on a key and critical point. As
the church confronts different and changing theological expressions over the course of time, it can place itself at a distinct disadvantage if it refuses to respond to new doctrinal
challenges except by repeating old formulations of biblical
teaching. At its Milwaukee (1971) and New Orleans (1973)
conventions, the Synod interpreted its constitution in a
manner consistent with the actions its founders took in the
19th century. It resolved to “reaffirm its position (Milwaukee Proceedings, Res. 2-21 and 5-24) that such statements,
insofar as they are in accord with the Scriptures and the
pattern of doctrine set forth in the Lutheran Symbols, are,
pursuant to Article II of the Synod’s constitution, binding
upon all its members (Cf. also Article VII).” It noted that
“the only basis for the acceptance of such statements” would
not be that the Synod adopts them by a majority vote—or
by an overwhelming or even a unanimous vote— but rather
“that they are in accord with Scripture and the pattern of
doctrine set forth in the Symbols” (1973 Res. 2-12).
A similar point can be made about synodical doctrinal
resolutions. One of the overtures to this year’s convention
(Ov. 7-37) quotes Walther: “the congregation [of the Synod]
can say, ‘As soon as it is a matter that has been left free for
us Christians, we can disregard the resolution of the convention,’ and the Synod can say nothing against that.”
Walther here is saying very simply that if a particular matter is not a theological issue, that is, something having to
do with God’s Word, then a member of the Synod is not
bound to such a resolution or decision by the Synod. On the
other hand, in those matters that are matters related to
God’s Word, this is not a matter about which members of
the Synod are free simply to do whatever they want to do.
Therefore, when the Synod affirms its beliefs on any aspect
of God’s Word this may not be viewed either as inexpedient
or as inapplicable by any member congregation or rostered
church worker in our Synod. This, in my view, amounts to
the same thing that the CCM was saying in the opinion on
p. 326 of the Workbook.
Therefore, I am strongly in favor of allowing to stand the
ruling of the Commission on Constitutional Matters on the
meaning of the term “inexpedient” in the Synod’s Constitu200l Convention Proceedings

tion. Every congregation and rostered church worker in our
Synod has made a commitment to every other member of
the Synod. We have, by our voluntary joining of the Synod,
agreed with one another as to how we will operate and
function as a Synod. Therefore, none of us has the freedom
simply to pick and choose those portions of our Synod’s doctrines and practices we wish to abide by and those we wish
to reject. Any suggestion to the contrary has no foundation
in the self-understanding of our Synod from its earliest
days until now.
The matter of the Handbook revision comes also before
your committee. I am of the opinion that the Synod should
postpone final action on this revision. This proposal, by sheer
volume, is easily the largest and most comprehensive resolution ever to come before a synodical convention. I believe the
Synod needs more time to carefully review and reflect on the
Handbook revision. Therefore, with all respect to the Commission on Structure for its tremendous efforts, I support the
approach outlined and explained in Overture 7-24, calling for
the Commission on Structure Report to be tabled.
Another large issue before your floor committee is the
issue of policy-based governance. Overtures 7-16 and 7-17
address the issue of how many of our Synod’s boards and
entities have adopted the John Carver style of board organization and function. It is important to note that Carver’s
model and his definition of a governing board does not fit
any of our Synod’s boards and therefore it is questionable
whether we are, so to speak, forcing square pegs into round
holes. Carver proposed his model for business and industry; we have tried to bend it to make it work for a church
organization.
Committee 8: National/
District Synod Relations
With a couple of exceptions, which I will mention in a
moment, I am supportive of the recommendations of the
task force. I would like to express profound appreciation for
the work done by the members of the task force, including
my sainted colleague President Richard Kapfer of the Iowa
West District. The people who make up this task force are
faithful churchmen, diligently working on a difficult and
thankless task. I find it most regrettable that they and
their work have been so unfairly treated in a variety of circles over the last few months. Of course, the task force recommendations raise real issues that deserve to be debated,
even in an energetic way. Regardless of what we may say,
as human beings we do not accept proposed change well.
But the good intentions of the task force’s members are beyond question in my mind.
First of all, I believe it would be unwise to simply table
the task force recommendations. I should observe that almost all of the these recommendations have to do with the
relationship between the Synod at the national level and at
the District level. Contrary to claims made in some overtures, the task force proposes virtually nothing to change
the relationship between the Synod and its member congregations.
I favor the Task Force on Structure’s recommendation
to establish a new, permanent Commission on Structure
(Ov. 7-13). Since change happens daily, the services of such