LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 160

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

160 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

2. Bring the dissent “to the attention of the Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations”

3. Express dissent as ‘‘an overture to the convention calling for re-
vision or recision”; and

B. A state of confession, however, is not concerned with synodical
relationships, but with keeping God’s Word not to participate (share)
with those who do not continue to hold to the apostolic teaching (Rom
16:17; 1 Tim 6:3-16). A state of confession is declared for the sake of
the conscience of the member of the Synod. A state of confession al-
lows a congregation or pastor to remain a member of an erring synod
but not participate in the errors of that same synod. A person’s confes-
sion is determined by their public membership. Thus, if the Synod ap-
proves false teaching as the official teaching of the Synod, then each
and every member of the Synod is equally guilty of that false teaching
on account of their public membership. A state of confession is one par-
ticular way of keeping a good conscience and not participating in false-
hood. Those congregations and pastors in a state of confession

1. commune only with those who have rejected the false teaching of
the Synod,

2. share pulpits and altars with those who have rejected the false
teaching of the Synod, and

3. support with our offerings only those missions and organizations
who teach in accordance with the Word of God;

and

WuereEasS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document “In Statu
Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium of the
Synod” has wrongly assumed that

1. The Constitution of our Synod does not “include provisions for
issuing a confessional protest” and therefore it should not be done (Jn
Status Confessionis, part 3),

2. A state of confession and the process of synodical dissent are
mutually exclusive, so that you cannot or should not do both at the same
time (Jn Status Confessionis, part 4c),

3. Those who are in a state of confession are not honoring “our
agreed-upon procedures for resolving our disagreements” (Jn Status
Confessionis, part 4e).

Although it is true that the words in status confessionis are not
found in our Constitution or Bylaws, some kind of action is antici-
pated when Bylaw 1.8.1 speaks of honoring and upholding the res-
olutions of the Synod but begins the sentence with a stipulation,
“While retaining the right of brotherly dissent.” Some kind of ac-
tion based on conscience is anticipated by the 1.8.2 reference to the
conscience of the dissenter, “While the conscience of the dissenter
shall be respected.” Finally, the Synod in convention in 1970 did
not see a state of protest as any kind of violation of our synodical
agreements but affirmed that “Member congregations, pastors, and
teachers who have entered upon a ‘state of protest’ nevertheless re-
tain their membership in the Synod” and “...remain entitled to all
benefits and privileges of synodical membership.”

The reason, that our Synod Constitution does not explicitly give
provisions for a state of confession is because a state of confession
is not directed at the Synod, nor is it done in order to change the
Synod. A state of confession is a churchly process that is employed
so that one can remain in a heterodox synod and follow the agreed-
upon procedures for dissent. 1970 Res. 5-01 understood that a state
of confession and following the Synod’s procedures for dissent
could exist side by side; and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “Jn
Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod,” has impractically and wrongly recommended that
the district president urge members of the Synod to follow the dis-
sent process “as an alternative to—or a stage prior to—taking the
more drastic step of declaring themselves to be in a state of con-
fessional protest” (part 4 c). This recommendation makes no sense.
A person or congregation who held in their conscience that the
Synod had erred would not be able to remain in the Synod even for
a short time if they were forced to share in that same false doctrine
and practice while they are dissenting. God’s Word does not allow
for participation with error, ever!

Rom. 16:17, “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divi-

sions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and
avoid them.”

1 Tim. 6:3-16, “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the
doctrine which accords with godliness....From such withdraw your-
self....But you, O man of God, flee from these things and pursue righ-
teousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness. Fight the good
fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and
have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses”;

and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “Jn
Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod,” has stated, ““A confessional protest should not be en-
tered into hastily” (part 4 d). Rightly understood, this is correct.
Franz Pieper states,

A church body does not forfeit its orthodox character by reason of
the casual intrusion of false doctrine. A church body loses its orthodoxy
only when it no longer applies Rom. 16:17, hence does not combat and
eventually remove the false doctrine, but tolerates it without reproof
and thus actually grants it equal right with the truth. (Christian Dog-
matics, III, “Orthodox and Heterodox Churches,” pp. 422-23)

Simply because a member of Synod, even a Synod President,
teaches something falsely is no reason to enter a state of confes-
sion. Simply because a human council, even the CTCR, publishes
false teachings is no reason to enter a state of confession. However,
when the Synod in convention approves falsehood, so that it be-
comes the Synod’s official doctrine and public confession, no time
is too soon to obey Scripture’s warning to flee from falsehood; and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “Jn
Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod,” has stated, “The issuing of a state of protest calls
into question the desire of these pastors or congregations to remain
members of the Synod on two counts” (part 3). This CTCR report
does not sufficiently understand the reason for which a member of
the Synod enters a state of confession. The report has wrongly as-
sumed that a state of confession is to either (a) subvert the dissent
process or (b) start a church within a church. Once again, a state of
confession allows the member to retain a good conscience, while it
remains in a heterodox synod for a time. The protesting member
does want to remain in the Synod and therefore has determined to
stay and call the erring Synod back to the truth; and

WHEREAS, The CTCR in the April 15, 2005, document, “/n Sta-
tus Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium of
the Synod,” has stated, “Their protest is something of a final at-
tempt, short of leaving the Synod, to draw attention to their con-
cers” and “Fourth, it appears on the one hand that the declaration
of in statu confessionis is intended to serve as a warning that unless
the Synod reverses itself and matters are rectified, amended, or re-
scinded, these protesting pastors and congregations will feel com-
pelled to sever their membership in the Synod” (p. 4). This sen-
tence from the report is true. Although Christians are never given
permission to share in another’s falsehood, they are commanded,
“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one
another in love” (Eph. 4:2), and “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” (Gal. 6:1). The principle
found in Titus 3:10, applies: “Warn a divisive person once, and
then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with
him.” The reason that a member of the Synod does not immedi-
ately leave the Synod in which error is approved is out of love for
their brothers. However, if the procedures for dissent—the only ap-
proved way of “calling for revision or rescision” of false official
teaching—are exhausted by a protesting member and the Synod
has not returned, then the protesting member should leave the
Synod or be removed; and

WHEREAS, If the present CTCR statement “Jn Statu Confessio-
nis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium of the Synod”
(April 15, 2005) is approved by the Synod, it will effectively elim-
inate all dissent on scriptural grounds. This CTCR statement pro-
hibits all. who dissent from “fleeing from falsehood” and requires
them to participate (share) in the error they are protesting while
they dissent. No conscience-bound person would do this; therefore
be it

Resolved, That the 2006 Southern Illinois District convention
memorialize the 2007 LCMS convention to reject the CTCR state-