LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 164

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

164

in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the
whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is
equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow
so that it builds itself up in love. —Ephesians 4:11-16 (ESV)

Winds and waves have threatened the Church throughout her his-
tory. They alarm us now in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
We cry for our Lord to awaken and to save us, lest we perish outside our
familiar boat. Many fear that it may break apart and sink. In recent
months several congregations and pastors have felt compelled to de-
clare themselves in statu confessionis, that is, in a state of confessional
protest, over and against the Synod of which they are members. Many
others are seriously contemplating such an action. The reasons, the tim-
ing, and the practical ramifications vary. Some have suspended Com-
munion with specific individuals in leadership positions. Others have
announced their intention to refrain from Communion with all who have
not declared themselves in a similar state of protest. Still others con-
tinue to commune while making their protest. Some only find the
protests confusing or tedious. The CTCR is to be commended for pre-
suming that the protestors’ concems are sincere and conscientious. The
Commission also did well to recognize that the step of issuing a con-
fessional protest may have arisen out of a deep seated frustration that
the concerns and reservations of these individuals and congregations
are not being given the serious consideration that they believe they de-
serve within the established structures of the Synod. Their protest is
something of a final attempt, short of leaving the Synod, to draw atten-
tion to their concems:.!

As emphasized in footnote 3, the Praesidium requested specific an-
swers to specific questions that left the Commission very little flexibil-
ity in this assignment. With regard to the theological, confessional
and/or historical principles on which such a protest of in statu confes-
Sionis may be declared, I would encourage members of the Praesidium
and Council of Presidents to study several other sources of information
which are readily accessible online:

(http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/Adopted%20In%20
Statu%20Confessionis_April%202005.doc), 5-6.

* “Status Confessionis and Selective Fellowship,” by the Rev. Dr. W. M.
Oesch; translated by J. Val. Andreae, Sola Scriprura I, no. 4 (Jan/Feb
1971): 19-24. This article provides an excellent theological assessment
of in statu confessionis and its alternatives. Most of the paper (Theses

1-11 of 14) may be accessed at: http://www. lutherannews.info/articles/
SolaScriptura.htm.

¢ In Statu Confessionis: Origins and Development, by the Rev. Dr.
Albert Collver of DeWitt, MI. This presentation was first delivered
to a conference called Confession and Christ’s Mission: Challenges
to the Future of the LCMS held at Apostles Lutheran Church in
Melrose Park, IL, on October 22, 2004. The author concluded that
“a status confessionis protest against a church body does not seem to
be a tenable option to those who take the Lutheran Confessions
seriously.” The transcript of the original paper is available at
tp://www. nsusluther: les.php?op=m =
=arti i = . It later
appeared as an article in Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology, XIV
(Eastertide 2005). The CTCR majority referenced this article in its
response to the Praesidium.

* In Statu Confessionis (A State of Confessional Protest), by Dr. Alvin
E. Wagner. This 18-page paper provides a general, historical and scrip-
tural definition of the concept of status confessionis. It was first deliv-
ered to the Conference of Authentic Lutherans at North Hollywood, Cal-
ifornia on January 19, 1975. http://www.wls.wels. net/library/

° In Statu Confessionis...unity in orthodox confession of faith, not po-
litical “institutional conservatism.” This webpage by one organization
in the LCMS presents a brief summary of the scriptural basis for this
action, and a description of what it might entail: http://reformation
today tripod.com/chemnitz/idil html.

* State of Confession for Trinity Lutheran Church, Herrin, IL. This State of
Confession was passed at the Voters’ Assembly of Trinity Lutheran Church
on Sunday, January 9, 2005. It identifies six points in which the congrega-
tion insists that the LCMS i is teaching and/or tolerating falsehood. These
can be found at Wy, Ww . On March
30, 2005, Trinity’s pastor, Michael D. Henson (also a Vice-President of
the Southern Illinois District) delivered a presentation to the Lutherans
United conference in Bloomingdale, IL, in which he described what
led his congregation to declare in statu confessionis. Read it at:

* What Do You Mean: “Jn Statu Confessionis?”, by Pastor James W.
Tauscher. This paper, delivered to the Fall Pastoral Conference of the
South Central District of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod at
Fort Worth, TX, on October 22, 1990, describes the history of in statu

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

confessionis as used by the WELS to protest against the LCMS within
the Synodical Conference. hi WWW,W,
Authors/T/TauscherStatu/TauscherStatu.pdf

Unlike the Commission majority, I recognize a certain consistency
within the Lutheran tradition. The circumstances which gave fise to in
statu confessionis certainly varied. But the action generally arose to
challenge efforts to impose practices upon Christians (or perform such
practices in Christ’s Name) that they understood to be incompatible
with the Gospel or contrary to the Scriptures and Confessions. The com-
mon element is the protest of faith and free conscience against coercion
or misrepresentation through political mandates or bureaucratic indif-
ference.

Congregations and pastors in The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod are protected against such coercion by Article VII, Section One
of their Synodical Constitution. It states: In its relation to its members
the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or
coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation's right
of self-government it is but an advisory body. Accordingly, no resolu-
tion of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual congregation
is of a binding force if it is not in accordance with the Word of God or if
it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condition of a congregation is
concemed (2004 Handbook, 14).

Within the LCMS, it may be presumed that those declaring in statu
confessionis are simply announcing to the rest of the Synod that some
“resolution of the Synod...is not in accordance with the Word of G
Every LCMS member’s commitment to uphold Article II of the Con-
stitution requires them to signal “an unwillingness or steadfast refusal to
implement or follow” any such resolution.

It was impossible for me to concur with the majority’s response at
several other points: First, the Commission suggests that “The issuing of
a state of protest calls into question the desire of these pastors or con-
gregations to remain members of the Synod.” To the contrary, charity
and fairness would recognize that these congregations and pastors have
issued a state of protest precisely because they do wish to remain mem-
bers of the Synod!

The LCMS is a voluntary association, and members who wish to
leave may easily do so. Second, the Commission asserts that “the sus-
pension or withholding of Communion to fellow members of the Synod
is by definition a severing of church fellowship (theologically speak-
ing), regardless of one’s institutional affiliation or membership.”

This contradicts centuries of Christian practice, whereby members
refrain from communing when they remain unreconciled with others
within their fellowship. The CTCR itself has described how pastors can
and do take steps short of full excommunication when they withhold
the sacrament from unrepentant sinners.” To suspend or refrain is not to
sever. In statu confessionis may be viewed as an extraordinary but tem-
porary measure of church discipline or unresolved conflict within a vol-
untary association, where ordinary channels for such discipline or con-
flict resolution seem to have broken down. If any district or synodical
official wishes to challenge his suspension from a particular altar, he is
always free to appeal to the congregation for a vote to overrule their
pastor.

Third, the Commission suggests that “If these pastors and congre-
gations are consistent, it should be assumed that they take the same po-
sition regarding every member of the Synod that has not joined them in
their protest.” No, it should not. Pastors and congregations are entirely
consistent (and charitable) when they single out for Communion disci-
pline only those who are “manifestly impenitent” of teaching falsely or
sinning stubbormly.

There is no consistency in disciplining those who are not actively
promoting a teaching or practice contrary to Scripture or the Confes-
sions. As the CTCR itself noted in Theology of Fellowship (1965): “In
all these expressions in the Preface to the Book of Concord the Lutheran
confessors are reaffirming the necessary distinction between heretics,
who are outside the body of Christ, and erring Christians, who are and
by God’s grace remain children of God, even though troubled by
error.”? A declaration of in statu confessionis does not rashly pronounce
someone a heretic, but speaks the truth in love to erring brothers and
sisters. We are to recognize “...the responsibility devolves upon the the-
ologians and ministers to remind even those who err ingenuously and
ignorantly of the danger to their souls and to warn them against it, lest
one blind person be misled by another.’“ The one declaring in statu con-
fessionis must always stand ready himself to repent when his own error
is demonstrated from the Scriptures and Confessions.

Fourth, the Commission calls upon protestors to endure further
wounds against conscience: “Until all avenues for working towards re-
solving matters between the Synod and the congregation and/or indi-
vidual member of the Synod have been exhausted, none of the parties
involved should refuse Communion to each other.” In a marriage af-