LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 161

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 161

ment “In Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the
Praesidium of the Synod” (April 15, 2005); and be it further

Resolved, That all members of Synod, who are bound by con-
science to flee from error and thus enter a state of confession, be
encouraged to simultaneously follow our agreed-upon Synod pro-
cedures for dissent (Bylaw 1.8) so that in love our Synod “may be
united in mind and thought” (1 Cor 1:10).

Supporting Documents

1. APPENDIX B In Statu Confessionis: A Theologico-Historical
Definition

The phrase in statu confessionis probably can be traced back to the
Adiaphoristic Controversy and the Tenth Article of the Formula of Con-
cord. While the phrase itself is not found in the Formula, the comparable
phrase in casu confessionis does appear. This phrase was used to de-
scribe a case or situation where public confession concerning the Gospel
had become a God-given and inescapable duty. The Formula indicates
that this duty devolves on Christians when the matter “has to do with the
truth of the Gospel, Christian liberty...{and] preventing offense to the
weak in faith.” The Formula describes those who by deed and word deny
the truth of the Gospel, destroy Christian liberty, and offend the weak as
“enemies of the Gospel.” At a later date in the history of the Lutheran
Church in statu confessionis came to be used to describe the conviction
and action of Christians who protested, at the risk of life and limb, words
and deeds in opposition to the Gospel and its articles as they understood
them. Used in the sense of the Formula of Concord, the phrase in statu
confessionis would describe the conviction and action of Christian indi-
viduals and groups who have reached the conclusion that the truth of the
Gospel and its articles is being perverted within their church body by
those who have become “enemies of the Gospel.”

The Commission on Theology and Church Relations is not aware
of any synodically approved definition of the term in statu confessio-
nis 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 because 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 declaration that one is in statu confes-
sionis is not tantamount to the breaking 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 fel-
lowship relations.

(Adopted by the CTCR, April 1970, and found in Convention
Workbook, 1971, p. 39); and

2. Convention Workbook, 1971, pp. 257-58

Overture 5-23 (which did not pass and is referenced in the final
resolve of [971 Res. 5-01)

To Require Forfeiture of Privileges on Part of Protesting Members

WHEREAS, Some member congregations, pastors, and teach- ~

ers of the Synod have declared themselves to be in a “state of
protest” or a “status confessionis” with the Synod for various
reasons of a doctrinal nature; and

WHEREAS, Entry into such a state or status calls on officials
of the Synod to deal with protestants for the purpose of clarify-
ing and resolving differences and difficulties; and

WHEREAS, Entry into such a state or status places the protes-
tant into a position of public disagreement with the Synod;
therefore be it

Resolved, That members of congregations that hold synodi-
cal membership and pastors and teachers of the Synod who have
entered into a ‘‘state of protest” or “status confessionis” thereby
forfeit the following privileges of membership in the Synod: ser-
vice on a board or commission of the Synod or a District,
whether this be by election or appointment, and advisory or del-
egate status at a convention of the Synod where such status
would call for such a protestant to serve in a representational ca-
pacity on behalf of others.

Faith Lutheran Church
Inglewood, Calif.
Herbert Hohenstein, Pastor

3. CTCR Document—April 15, 2005 (followed by minority opinions)

In Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium
of the Synod

Introduction

The first objective listed among the reasons for the formation of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in 1847 is that the Synod, “under
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions,” shall: Conserve and promote
the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10), work through its
official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies,
and provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17),
and heresy.’

In recent years congregations and pastors of the Synod, seeking to
be faithful to this biblical mandate to uphold right teaching in the
Synod, have declared themselves to be “in a state of confession” (in
statu confessionis) as a way of expressing protest over against actions
taken and resolutions adopted by the Synod itself. As a result of discus-
sions of this topic by the Council of Presidents and the Praesidium of
the Synod, questions have been directed to the Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations (CTCR). In response, the CTCR presents the
following summary overview of the use of the term in statu confessionis
down through history and offers some suggestions as to how the mem-
bers of the Synod may carry out—in an edifying way—the biblical and
confessional mandate to hold fast to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is
taught in the Scripture and rightly confessed in The Book of Concord.”

(1) “What are the theological confessional and/or historical princi-
ples on which such a protest of in statu confessionis may be
declared?”

The phrase “in a state of confession” (in statu confessionis) does
not have a consistent meaning (much less a common definition) within
the Lutheran tradition. It is possible to detect at least three general in-
terpretations and uses of this concept from the time of the Reformation
to the present.

First, the Formula of Concord uses in casu confessionis (not in statu
confessionis), by which it means that there are moments or situations
when adiaphora cease to be adiaphora (temporarily) and become acts
of confession. Such was the case in the wake of the Smalcald War,
when the emperor (left hand realm) attempted by force of arms to bring
the Evangelicals back under the obedience of the pope through the re-
imposition of Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies upon the Evangeli-
cal churches (right hand realm). Against this governmental intrusion
into the church and the government’s subsequent persecution of
Lutheran pastors, Lutherans found it necessary to enter a state of protest
against the emperor. A parallel situation can be found in the nineteenth
century when the King of Prussia (left hand realm) forcibly merged the
Lutherans and Reformed into a Union Church and imposed upon it a
common liturgy and common confession that compromised the
Lutheran confession. Some of the forbearers of the Missouri Synod
found themselves forced to leave for the sake of confession. In both of
these situations, the government (left hand realm) sought to impose a
practice or policy upon the church that necessitated the church’s protest.

Second, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the
phrase in statu confessionis underwent some redefinition and expan-
sion. Now the church issued a protest not against policies imposed by
the government upon the church, but against governmental policies
within the state. Before and during World War II, for example, Chris-
tians in Germany (Reformed and Lutheran) declared themselves to be in
Statu confessionis with the state as it engaged in practices of ethnic
cleansing within society. Since then, church bodies within the Lutheran
World Federation have also employed this phrase not as way of protest-
ing the intrusion of the left hand realm into the right hand realm, but as
a protest against social, racial, and foreign policies adopted by govern-
ments around the world. Perhaps the most notable of these policies was
apartheid in South Africa during the 1980s.

Third, the phrase in statu confessionis has been used exclusively
within the context of the right hand realm. For example, the phrase has
occasionally been employed to express a protest over against another
church body. In fact, it appears in this sense during the break-up of the
Synodical Conference. Another notable example of this usage of the
phrase occurred in 1969 when the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of
France and Belgium announced a provisional suspension of fellowship
with the Missouri Synod. In a similar manner, the Missouri Synod en-
tered into a state of protesting fellowship with the American Lutheran
Church in 1977, making use of a definition of in statu confessionis
given by the CTCR in 1970.3 More recently, this phrase has been used
by individuals and/or congregations within church bodies as a means
of protesting certain positions and actions adopted by their parent
church body and which the protestors believe are contrary to the Scrip-
tures.

(2) “What does it mean for a member congregation of The Lutheran

Church—Missouri Synod to declare that it is in statu confessionis or

in a State of confessional protest against the Synod?” Again, “How

does the same question pertain to an individual member of the

Synod who declares such a state of confessional protest?”