LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 45

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 45

mitted by the Atlantic District regarding the meaning of authentein
[“‘to have authority over’], orders of creation, and the priesthood
of believers; the question of women lectors; dissent from the
Synod’s position on woman suffrage submitted by 31 LCMS pas-
tors; and the referral of two Michigan District overtures (2-05 “To
Affirm the Current Practice of AHowing Congregations to Decide
the Role of Women in Congregational Life” and 2-06 “To Affirm
the Current Practice of Allowing Congregations to Decide the Role
of Laity in Worship Services”).

During this trienntum the Commission has focused its attention
on a comprehensive, foundational study of the biblical concept of
“the image of God,” with special reference to the relationship of
man and woman. It has shared preliminary drafts of its study with a
panel of reactors (five women, one man) selected prior to the com-
pletion of its 1998 report entitled Biblical Revelation and Inclusive
Language. The Commission has also shared its draft of “Male and
Female in the Image of God” with the faculties of the two semi-
naries, the Council of Presidents, and the theological faculties of
the ten colleges/universities in the Concordia University System
for their comments and reactions. At the time of this report these
reactions are still in the process of being received and discussed.

2. Cloning

In 1998 Res. 3-15B “To Request Commission on Theology and
Church Relations Study Document on Issues Raised by Cloning,”
the Synod asked the Commission to prepare “a study document to
help the church, on the basis of the Word of God, make informed
ethical judgments concerning cloning and attendant issues.” The
Commission is presently preparing a draft on the topic.

3. Prayer

The President of the Synod in 1986 requested a study of the the-
ology and practice of prayer, noting specifically the importance of
prayer in Christian piety and expressing concern about understand-
ings that seem to equate prayer with the means of grace. The Pres-
ident of the Synod renewed this assignment in 1996 following a
Commission request for a review of the need for this study.

4. Theology and Practice of the Divine Call

The 1992 LCMS convention assigned to the CTCR “in consul-
tation with the Council of Presidents and representatives of our
Synod’s terminal schools, the preparation of a single document that
provides answers to the questions and concerns within the church
regarding the theology and practice of ‘the divine call,” utilizing
the writings of C. F. W. Walther (i-e., his book Church and Min-
istry and essay ‘The Congregation’s Right to Choose Its Pastor’ )”
(Res. 3-09A). The Commission is continuing its discussion of a
draft on the assignment—a draft that has been shared with the
Council of Presidents and the seminaries and colleges/universities
for response and input.

5. Guidelines for Inter-Christian Relationships

The 1981 LCMS convention requested that the CTCR prepare
“practical guidelines ... to assist officials, pastors, teachers, con-
gregations, and individuals in the Synod, in determining which
practices and activities are appropriate to the various levels of inter-
Lutheran and inter-Christian relationships in which the Synod is
involved” (Res. 3-03A). In partial response to this assignment the
Commission distributed a study document to the Synod in 1991 ti-
tled Guidelines for Inter-Christian Relationships: An Instrument
for Study. Prior to the 1998 convention a draft of the CTCR’s final
report was shared with the Council of Presidents for their review
and response. In view of the 1998 convention’s assignment to pre-
pare a study on church fellowship and the time constraints in-
volved, the Commission has done no further work on the inter-
Christian relationships assignment during this triennium.

6. Bioethics

The Commission has an ongoing assignment from the Synod
(beginning with 1977 Res. 3-26, and included in Bylaw 3.925 b 4)
to provide guidance on issues raised by developments in biomed-
ical research and the life sciences. As noted above. the Commis-
sion is now working on the topic of cloning.

C. Requests for Theological Opinions

1. Request for an Opinion from a Dispute Resolution Panel
Regarding Call to Specialized Ministry

Ina July 15, 1999, letter to the CTCR the chairman of a dispute
resolution pane] (in accordance with Bylaw 8.21 1) requested the
Commission’s response to a question dealing with a call extended
by a District Board of Directors to a specialized ministry within a
District. The following question was submitted: “Can the body is-
suing an ecclesiastical call unilaterally reassign the individual
within the District; or. can the body issuing an ecclesiastical call
remove the individual from the specialized ministry without taking
steps to remove the individual from the clergy roster of Synod?”

At its Sept. 16-18. 1999, meeting the Commission adopted the
following response:

In the case of a call to a specialized ministry, the calling body may
make changes in the assignment, including the place of service, only if
this is in accord with the terms of the original call. When there is a lack
of clarity in these terms, Christian charity demands that every effort be
made to reach a mutually salistaclory solution. Removal of an individ-

ual from the roster of the Synod is not the prerogative of the calling
body.

Adopted September 18, 1999
2. Opinion on Church Discipline

In an April 30, 1999, letter, the Secretary of the Synod, on be-
half of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. requested guid-
ance from the CTCR “in the area of congregational church disci-
pline.” He specifically requested a response to the following four
questions regarding “self-exclusion™:

1. Who makes the determination that an individual is “self ex-
cluded” and on what proper basis?

2. Does the term “self-exclusion” remove the responsibility of the
congregation over agains! the repentant sinner?

ws)

. Could “self-exclusion” be wrongly or hastily concluded, with the
resull thai no effort is made lo reclaim an individual who should
not have been removed from membership?

4, Would it be advisable lo advise slaying with the lerminology “ex-
communication” which is properly carried oul by the congrega-
lion and seeks the restoration and salvation of the sinner?

In response to these questions the Commission adopted the fol-
lowing opinion:

|. The congregation makes this determination on the basis of “the
refusal of those who are being dealt with in Christian discipline lo
receive further admonition and who sever their connection vol-
untarily with the church” (Church Discipline in the Christian
Congregation, 22).

2. Once the delermination of self-exclusion has been made and the
person’s membership has been terminated in accordance with the
congregation’s disciplinary procedures. the congregation is no
longer responsible for this person as a member of the congrega-
tion. However, it does have an ongoing concern and responsibil-
ity for this person's spirilual welfare as il does for other
unchurched persons.

as}

. Yes, just as excommunication ilscH can be “wrongly and hastily
concluded.” The abuse of disciplinary procedures leading either
lo excommunication or self-cxclusion does not negate the proper
use of these procedures and/or the determinations resulting from
them.

4. Whalever terminology or procedures are used. church discipline

should always be “properly carried oul by the congregation” and

should have as its goal “the restoration and salvation of the sin-
ner.” This is true of procedures involving and leading up to ci-
ther “excommunication” or “self-exctusion.”

Adopted September 18. 1999

2001 Convention Workbook