LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 195

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS — 195

WHEREAS, The service of women in the roles of congregational
president, vice-president, and elder may not be viewed as contain-
ing the “function of pastoral oversight through the ministry of
Word and Sacrament” in congregational life today, and therefore
may be helpful for congregational life, ministry, and growth in the
Body of Christ; therefore be it

Resolved, That The Service of Women in Congregational and
Synodical Offices, submitted by the CTCR in 1994, be adopted by
the 2004 LCMS convention for use and guidance in our congrega-
tions and denomination; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod, in convention, give thanks for the
servant leadership ministries of women as baptized Christians in
our denomination in all areas of service, including congregational
leadership.

St. Peter
Brooklyn, NY

3-101

"To Adopt Lutheran Statement on Families

WHEREAS, Baptist Press reported on Jan. 5, 2004: “New Jersey
Governor James E. McGreavay signed into law Jan. 4, 2004, a bill
that allows therapeutic human cloning and gives parents the option
of donating unwanted embryos to stem cell research”; and

WuereaS, Much publicity has been given to the alleged cloning
of a human being; and

Wuereas, A “Declaration on Families of the World Congress

on Families” opposes the cloning of humans (Christian News, April
14, 1997; Jan. 6, 2004); therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2004 convention of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod commend the “Declaration on Families of the
World Congress on Families” and adopt a Lutheran statement on
families, incorporating the fine Christian approach found in former
President A. L. Barry’s “What about Christian Families.”

Trinity
New Haven, MO

3-102

To Call Upon CTCR to Review Birth-Control Products
WHEREAS, God is the Creator and Giver of all life; and
WHEREAS, God has commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply

and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28 RSV); and
WHEREAS, Life begins at conception; and -

WHEREAS, God determines the number of our days; and

WHEREAS, We are not to take the life of another but, rather, to
leave that in God’s hands; and

WHEREAS, Scripture directs us to speak up for the rights of the

helpless; and : .

WHEREAS, Contraception is commonly practiced but its work-
ings not understood well by many; and

WHEREAS, Some abortifacients, such as the JUD, the “morning
after pill,” and mifepristone (formerly RU-486), which destroy the
fertilized egg or prevent its implantation in the uterine wall, have
been mislabeled as contraceptives; and

WHEREAS, Some birth-control pills as a backup measure thin the
uterine wall so that if conception does take place the fertilized egg
will not be able to implant and an early abortion will result; and

WHEREAS, Many would appreciate knowing which so-called
birth-control pills actually act as abortifacients ‘so that they can be
avoided; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and Church Re-

lations review the various birth-control products, clarifying which -

ones act sometimes or-all the time as abortifacients; and be it fur-
ther . , ;

Resolved, That this information be made available to pastors
and laypeople of the LCMS.

Circuit 13 Forum, North Wisconsin District; Faith, Plano,
TX; Immanuel, Brandon, FL; St. Paul, Bonduel, WI

3-103 ~

To Consider Proposed Minority Opinion
Submitted to the CTCR re Opinion
on Malicious Desertion

WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
(CTCR) recently produced an Opinion providing “guidelines re-
garding what constitutes malicious desertion, especially as it ap-
plies to withholding sexual contact for an inordinate period of
time”; and

WuerEAS, The Synod in 2001 elected Mr. Paul Nus to serve as
a laymember of the CTCR; and

- WHEREAS, Finding himself unable in good conscience to agree
with the CTCR’s Opinion on Malicious Desertion, Mr. Nus pro-
duced a Minority Opinion and submitted that document to the
CTCR; and .

WHEREAS, That Opinion reads as follows:
A Minority Opinion on the CTCR’s Opinion on Malicious Desertion

Summary |

* The CTCR’s rendering of an Opinion in this case establishes a
dangerous precedent that the Synod must not validate through its
own endorsement or approval.

¢ It is clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 7 that extended sexual denial
within marriage is sinful.

¢ Interpretations of 1 Corinthians 7 provided by respected LCMS
theologians demonstrate that a Christian cannot justifiably divorce
his or her Christian spouse by equating sexual denial with “mali-
cious desertion.”

* Further considerations apply to cases of divorce involving ros-
tered church workers. While the Commission noted these in pass-
ing, sexual denial and “malicious desertion” have implications
that deserve particular emphasis to such persons.

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He an-
swered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from
the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON
A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE,
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but
one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man sepa-
rate.” (Matt. 19:3-6 NASB) .

Marriage and marriages are under attack in our culture. Satan,
the mortal enemy of our souls, is working behind these attacks. In
defense of the very institution of marriage, many are now striving
to promote a Constitutional Amendment. The Christian definition
of marriage as “one man joined with one woman for life” was once
commonly accepted. Yet these last two words are missing from
most versions of the proposed amendment—and also from the
CTCR’s recent Opinion on the matter of “malicious desertion.” '

The Commission was asked to provide “some guidelines re-
garding what constitutes malicious desertion, especially as it ap-
plies to withholding of sexual contact for an inordinate period of
time.” This request stems from ‘a particular case. A number of de-
tails regarding that case were shared with every member of the
CTCR. These details are omitted here and ought not have been pro-
vided to the Commission in the first place. Because they were, it
cannot be said that the CTCR addressed this matter as an abstract
theological question. The Commission knew too much and too lit-
tle about this case to render a proper judgment in this matter.

That the Commission even took up this question is regrettable.
Involvement in such matters of casuistry establishes a dangerous
precedent, and the CTCR could easily find itself deluged by similar
requests. Recent Opinions issued by the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters make this even more likely. One requires ecclesias-
tical supervisors to ensure that any CTCR Report commended by
the Synod in convention as a “doctrinal resolution” is “carried out”
and “implemented.” Another freights the permission of ecclesiasti-