LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 368

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

368 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Question 10: “That They May Be One” serves as the basic con-
fession for the “Keller Resolution” subscribed by four Texas con-
gregations on April 14, 2002, and other LCMS congregations since
then. The “Keller Resolution” includes the following resolves:

Resolved, That, in keeping with its status as a public confession, we
will practice Church Fellowship with those congregations and pastors
subscribing to this confession; and be it further

Resolved, That, in keeping with our public confession, we mark and
avoid (Romans 16:17) Rev. Gerald Kieschnick and Rev. David Benke
as those have publicly participated in, and defended such participation
in, unionistic and/or syncretistic worship services; and be it further

Resolved, That, in keeping with our public confession, we will not
practice Church Fellowship with those who defend the public sins of
Rev. Gerald Kieschnick and Rev. David Benke, outlined above, nor will
we practice Church Fellowship with those who reject the biblical doc-
trine set forth in points | through 14 of “That They May Be One”; and
finally, be it further

Resolved, That, if Rev. Gerald Kieschnick and Rev. David Benke
have not public repented and amended their sinful lives by the Festival
of the Reformation, 2002—giving public, unambiguous testimony to
their repentance of their willful, public sin—this congregation will
gather other congregations which have adopted this resolution to take
further action in keeping with our common confession of the Scriptural
teaching of Church Fellowship.

Have these congregations “broken fellowship” with the Synod by
their actions and removed themselves from the Synod by self-exclu-
sion?

Opinion: If these congregations have not formally terminated
their membership in the Synod, they are still considered members
and are subject to the ecclesiastical supervision of their District
Presidents.

Question ]1: May any congregation that has signed the “Keller
Resolution” be represented by voting delegates at a District con-
vention or a synodical convention?

Opinion: A congregation may be represented by voting dele-
gates at a convention of a District or the Synod until such time as
the congregation is no longer a member of the Synod, as stated in
prior opinions of the Commission (Ag. 1907 A-D; Ag. 2084; Ag.
2084B). The congregation does not lose its voting rights for any
reason, even if suspended. A congregation’s voting rights are for-
feited only when a congregation resigns or is removed from mem-
bership.

Question 12: May pastors of congregations that have signed the
“Keller Resolution” be voting delegates at a District convention or
a synodical convention?

Opinion: Unless an otherwise eligible pastor of a congregation
has been placed on suspended status, he may serve as a voting del-
egate at a District or Synod convention (Bylaw 2.25).

Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003

Questions re Permission Given by Ecclesiastical
Supervisor (03-2353)

A member of the Synod asks the following questions of the
Commission:

Question |: If an ecclesiastical supervisor approves a text or
speech that is in doctrinal error, is he, or the writer/speaker, or both
able to be charged/disciplined for said text or speech?

Opinion: If an ecclesiastical supervisor approves a text or
speech that is in doctrinal error, both he and the writer (speaker)
are to correct or amend such error. CCM opinion 02-2309 states:

When an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error in his counsel,
it is incumbent upon that supervisor to correct or amend it. The
member should then be held to consider the corrected counsel. Fail-
ure to consider such amended admonition could form the basis for
disciplinary action as provided in Article XIII.

Question 2: As a corollary, if a publication “passes doctrinal re-
view” in accord with synodical Bylaws, who is responsible for doc-
trinal errors that are found by others to be contained therein—the
author, the doctrinal reviewer or both?

2004 Convention Workbook

Opinion: The procedures for doctrinal review are not the same
as those for ecclesiastical supervision. Any member of the Synod
can make a challenge to a published item. Bylaw 10.15 a states; “A
challenge to the doctrinal review certification of a published item
may be initiated by any member of the Synod.” It is finally up to a
panel of three doctrinal reviewers to determine what should be
done with the published material.

Question 3: If an ecclesiastical supervisor gives one permission
to do something that is in error, does such permission also free one
from accountability for other errors committed in the act or process
of doing the “permitted thing’’?

Opinion: This question is answered in response to question 1.
When an error is discovered, it is to be corrected or amended.

Question 4: Does “absolution” given by the ecclesiastical su-

pervisor for “possible offense caused” by a sinful action mean that
an individual is also no longer responsible for the sin itself, that he
is under no compulsion and unable to be put under compulsion to
renounce his action before those who may have been misled by
it—even before the whole Synod or World if that sin is a generally
known or publicized action? Does being forgiven by God remove
the necessity for a member of the Synod to renounce false teaching
and correct both errors he has proclaimed and false impressions he
may have given?
Opinion: Although a part of this question is answered in opinion
one, the issues pertaining to sin, forgiveness by God and responsi-
bility for a sin itself are questions which could be better addressed
by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003

CCM Rulings, Dissent, and Ecclesiastical Supervision
, (03-2354)

In a letter received May 22, 2003, a pastor of the Synod asked a
series of questions in three categories: (1) Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters Rulings in Conflict with Official Documents; (2)
Regarding Dissent; and (3) Regarding Ecclesiastical Supervision.

Question 1: If, for whatever reason, the Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters had in effect created new governing principles out-
side of its purview — or issued a ruling which was in conflict with
the Scriptures, the Confessions, and the Constitution of the Synod —
what recourse would a member of the Synod have for challenging
that ruling of the Commission on Constitutional Matters?

Opinion: Bylaws 3.903 and 3.905 define the membership and
functions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Those by-
laws make no provision for an individual member of the Synod to
challenge an opinion of the Commission that was issued in re-
sponse to a question by an eligible party as set forth in Bylaw 3.905
d. However, the Commission has reconsidered an opinion when
asked to do so by a written request from any eligible party that the
bylaw allows to make an initial request for an opinion from the
Commission.

Question 2: If a member of the Synod were to sign a statement
such as the example listed below, would his action be interpreted
by the Commission as (a) making a formal statement of brotherly
dissent as described in Bylaw 2.39 c; (b) engaging in an activity
whereby each signatory would be liable for a complaint to be
lodged against him by another member of the Synod; or (c) simply
stating his personal opinion in public according to our country’s
freedom of speech as protected by the Bill of Rights?

(Please note: this request for a ruling is not asking in any way
for approval or acceptance of the details found in the following
statement, which is provided simply for the purpose of serving as
an example. It is provocative with highly-charged terms in an at-
tempt to resemble actual documents of this kind which circulate in
the Synod at present.)

We, the undersigned, declare with the signatures affixed to this doc-
ument our formal protest against, and rejection of, the Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel (DRP) ruling in the Benke case. We are in total concurrence
with the Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz’s protest against the DRP’s decision.

Furthermore, we believe that a grave injustice has been done to
Christ and His Church in that: