Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2007 · 63rd Convention, Houston › Page 164
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 164
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
164
RESOLUTIONS
gregations…of the Evangelical Lutheran Church who confess and accept the confessional basis of Article II”; and
WHEREAS, Article VI states, “Conditions for acquiring
and holding membership in the Synod are the following: 1.
Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II”; and
WHEREAS, Bylaw 1.6.1 states, “The confessional position
of the Synod is set forth in Article II of its Constitution, to
which all who wish to be and remain members of the Synod
shall subscribe”; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod in convention recognizes that
the words inspired, inerrant, infallible, and/or revealed with
respect to the written Word of God are in harmony with the
confessional basis of the Synod (Art. II); and be it further
Resolved, That congregations be encouraged to include
the words inspired, inerrant, infallible, and/or revealed with
respect to the written Word of God in their constitutions
and/or bylaws.
Action: Adopted (10)
(During discussion, an amendment to change may in the last
resolve to be encouraged to was agreed to by the committee. The
resolution was adopted as changed [Yes: 1,054; No: 35].)
To Encourage the Study of CTCR
Documents Relating to Public Rebuke
of Public Sin and to Amend the Synod’s
Bylaws Relating to Matthew 18
RESOLUTION 8-05A
Overtures 8-11–30 (CW, pp. 261–272)
WHEREAS, In 2004 Res. 8-01A, the Synod adopted new
procedures for ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution; and
WHEREAS, These newly adopted bylaws have created uncertainty for some in the church as they relate to matters of
public rebuke of public sin; and
WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has recently approved a study document,
Public Rebuke of Public Sin (May 2006, CW, pp. 361–368),
which has been distributed to all LCMS congregations, pastors, and church workers; and
WHEREAS, Within the CTCR Response to Expressions of
Dissent (2004–2006) (CW, pp. 400–410), the CTCR has further addressed public rebuke of public sin in a section entitled “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution
(2004 Res. 8-01A; 2004 Res. 7-02A)”; and
WHEREAS, Prior to the adoption of 2004 Res. 8-01A, the
practice of face-to-face meetings included in the former adjudication process of the Synod, dispute resolution process
of the Synod, bylaws of the Synod, and CCM opinions from
1968 to the present reflected a practice and desire for fraternal and evangelical relations among members of the
Synod toward the goal of reconciliation; and
WHEREAS, The CTCR Response to Expressions of Dissent
(2004–2006) states in part (pp. 18–19),
It is clear that Matthew 18 does not directly apply to cases of
public rebuke of public sin. The Scriptures make this clear and
the Large Catechism teaches accordingly. In the opinion of the
CTCR the dissenters make a good point in this connection.
2004 Res. 8-01A could have made it more clear that Matthew
18 does not directly apply to instances of public sin. However,
2007 Convention Proceedings
when it comes to the Synod’s humanly devised procedures for
expulsion from membership in the Synod or dispute resolution,
it is legitimate for the Synod to expect a face-to-face meeting
[emphasis added]. In its May 2006 report on Public Rebuke of
Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment [p. 15] the CTCR says:
While there is no requirement to follow the steps outlined
in Matthew 18 in cases where the text does not apply, this
does not mean that steps outlined by Jesus in this text are
prohibited in any case. Following the steps of Matthew 18
in cases beyond their direct application may in fact be beneficial to the church and its administrative structures and
therefore advisable in the given case. But the church
should neither assume nor insist that Scripture requires
the procedure in every instance of public sin.
and further
Matthew 18 does not speak specifically to cases of public
sin, as Luther declares in his explanation of the Eighth
Commandment. The steps outlined in Matthew 18, therefore, are not to be considered absolute requirements mandated by Scripture nor the Confessions in cases of public
sin. These steps may, however, be part of synodical
processes that would lead to specific consequences of public
sin (e.g., removal from the clergy roster of the Synod). Public rebuke is not the same as the filing of formal charges
[emphasis added];
and
WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations in Public Rebuke of Public Sin formulated additional conclusions (pp. 26–28) on the public rebuke of public
sin to help the Synod in its deliberations:
• Public rebuke should not be the first response to a first
offense. A rapid rush to judgment should be avoided (cf.,
Gal. 6:1–3);
• Public rebuke should be pursued first by those who have
the office and responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision
in the Synod, but if those having that responsibility fail in
their duty public rebuke may be pursued by any Christian;
• One who offers public rebuke should be certain that
he/she properly understands the nature of the sin to be
rebuked;
• Public rebuke is not to be undertaken lightly but only
after much prayer, deliberation, and consultation “with
others who know of the sin”;
• In cases where the sin is not apparent to all and therefore perhaps not truly public, a call for discussion rather
than rebuke might best serve the needs of the church;
• Public rebuke should be rare and used primarily in dealing with notorious or scandalous teaching or conduct in
which the Gospel is at stake;
• The purposes of public rebuke are both to warn and instruct the church and to offer spiritual care to the offender;
and
WHEREAS, Paul teaches us to deal evangelically with one
another: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who
are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself,
or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens,
and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1–2
NIV); and