LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 159

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 159

style” or worship practices that would be subject to limitation for doc-
trinal reasons? To whom may a pastor/congregation turn to receive an
authoritative answer regarding the doctrinal purity of a specific worship
element?

Unionism and Syncretism: Under what circumstances, if any, could
an LCMS pastor participate in public worship with clergy of other de-
nominations or religions?

and

WHEREAS, the procedures and processes currently in place for
selecting representatives to form decision-making bodies within
our synod are subject to a trust-eroding “party spirit,” a term which
has been used to characterize the present condition of our Synod,
the following is included in order to provide a procedure that en-
courages reliance on God’s gracious working; therefore be it

Resolved, That this “General Council” will be made up of 4 per-
sons from each of the districts of the LCMS. There will be two
clergy and two laypersons from each district. The representatives
will be chosen in the following manner: Each congregation, after a
time of prayer pleading the working of the Holy Spirit in this
process, will cast lots to select one of its members to serve as a rep-
resentative. Each district, after a time of prayer pleading the work-
ing of the Holy Spirit in this process, will cast lots to select two
laypersons from those submitted by its congregations and then cast
lots to select two clergymen. The time and place of meeting for this
council will be set by this convention. This “General Council” shall
be held beginning on a date no later than six months subsequent to
the passing of this resolution. The “General Council” will be facil-
itated by the president of one of our two seminaries, to be deter-
mined by the casting of lots. The conclusions reached by this coun-
cil will be regarded as the official position of the LCMS on these
issues.

Circuit #16
Texas District

3-35

To Reject CTCR Statement re In Statu Confessionis
and Encourage Use of Dissent Process

WHEREAS, Article VII of the LCMS Constitution is careful to
not assume that the Synod will be error free. “Accordingly, no res-
olution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual con-
gregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the
Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condi-
tion of a congregation is concerned”; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 1.8.1, out of great concern for the truth,
makes it clear that “the right of brotherly dissent” is not to be tram-
pled. “While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of
the Synod are expected as part of the life together within the fel-
lowship of the Synod to honor and uphold the resolutions of the
Synod”; and

WueEREAS, Bylaw 1.8.2 states that for those who are exercising
their dissent, great concern is made to respect matters of con-
science. “Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be
expressed first within the fellowship of peers and then brought to
the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
before finding expression as an overture to the convention calling
for revision or rescision. While the conscience of the dissenter shall
be respected, the consciences of others, as well as the collective
will of the Synod, shall also be respected”; and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in an April of 1970 statement stated:
“The Commission on Theology and Church Relations is not aware
of any synodically approved definition of the term in statu confes-
sionis for our time. The commission is of the opinion that the term
is quite generally employed in the current usage of our church to
declare that an individual or congregation is in a state of protest be-
cause it holds that a particular teaching, practice, or action of the
church against which the protest is lodged is contrary to the Word
of God or endangers the Gospel. Used in this sense, the declara-
tion that one is in statu confessionis is not tantamount to the break-
ing of fellowship. If, however, the circumstances which called forth
the protest are not corrected in due time, the implication is that the

protest will lead to the severance of fellowship relations” (Adopted
by the CTCR, April 1970, and found in Convention Workbook,
1971, p. 39. Note: The entire quote is included at the end of this
resolution as Supporting Document 1.); and

WHEREAS, The 1971 LCMS convention passed Res. 5-01, enti-
tled “To Decline to Require Forfeiture of Privileges on Part of
Protesting Members.” It stated:

WHEREAS, Member congregations, pastors, and teachers who have
entered upon a state of protest nevertheless retain their membership in
the Synod; and ;

Wuereas, The Constitution of the Synod does not recognize a lim-
ited membership such as is proposed by our petitioning brethren; there-
fore be it

Resolved, That congregations and individuals who are in a state of
protest remain entitled to all benefits and privileges of synodical mem-
bership; and be it further

Resolved, That we remind ourselves that the privileges of synodi-
cal membership also carry with them duties and responsibilities (syn-
odical Handbook, paragraph 1.05); and be it finally

Resolved, That we refrain from granting Overture 5-23

(Convention Proceedings, 1971, p. 153);

{Note: 1971 Overture 5-23, “To Require Forfeiture of Privi-
leges on Part of Protesting Members,” which was not passed by
the convention, and which 1971 Res. 5-01 explicitly mentions as
declined is included as Supporting Document 2 following this res-
olution};

and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “Jn
Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod,” completely contradicts a previous CTCR statement.
The CTCR in April 2005 stated, “The suspension or withholding of
Communion to fellow members of the Synod is by definition a sev-
ering of church fellowship,” while the CTCR in April 1970 stated,
“..the declaration that one is in statu confessionis is not tanta-
mount to the breaking of fellowship”

{Note: The April 25, 2005, CTCR document, “In Statu Confessio-
nis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium of the Synod,” to-
gether with the minority reports, are included as Supporting Docu-
ment 3 following this resolution};

and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “In
Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod,” completely contradicts a previous CTCR statement.
The CTCR in April 2005 expects ecclesiastical discipline, when it
says, “...the approach taken in dealing with those who declare
themselves in statu confessionis with the Synod and refuse to com-
mune district or synodical officials should be the same approach
taken in dealing with those who ignore or oppose the Synod’s po-
sition on close(d) Communion and thus choose to practice open
Communion in violation of their commitment to Synod.”

(Note: A district president could and should discipline those
who practice open Communion.); while the CTCR in April 1970
stated, “That congregations and individuals who are in a state of
protest remain entitled to all benefits and privileges of synodical
membership”;

and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “Jn
Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod,” confuses the differences between in statu confessio-
nis with the synodical dissent process found in Bylaw 1.8.

A. The synodical dissent is designed to allow a member of Synod
to oppose and work to correct certain official synodical teachings,
which they consider to be false doctrine. Members of Synod have
agreed to follow this dissent process (Bylaw 1.8), not because it is found
in Holy Scripture or required by Holy Scripture, but for the sake of good
order in the Synod. On the one hand, our beloved Synod wants her
members “to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod”; on the
other hand, she desires some orderly way to allow for any synodical er-
rors to be corrected. The truth of God’s Word is just that important!
This dissent process has three steps:

1. Express dissent “within the fellowship of peers,”