LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 410

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

410 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

a) An acknowledgment that the expression of dissent has
been received by the CTCR, thus fulfilling the bylaw
provision (1.8.2) that “dissent from doctrinal resolutions
and statements is to be expressed first within the fel-
lowship 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 call-
ing for revision or recision.”

b) A printed copy and brief explanation of the CTCR’s in-
ternal policy for handling dissent (see point 2 below).

c) Any additional information or clarification deemed nec-
essary in order to help the dissenter(s) understand what it
means to “express dissent from doctrinal resolutions and
statements” and how this process works in the Synod in
light of current bylaw provisions and guidance given in
other synodical resolutions and documents (e.g., CTCR re-
ports on the expression of dissent). Dissenters should be
informed, if necessary, that their dissent should clearly
identify the specific resolution(s) or statement(s) of the
Synod to which they are dissenting and identify the Scrip-
tural and/or confessional basis for their dissent.

2. Expressions of dissent from the doctrinal position of the Synod
shall be handled internally by the Commission as follows:

a) The expression of dissent shall be shared with all mem-
bers of the Commission no later than the next meeting
of the Commission.

b) The Executive Committee shall assign the expression of
dissent to a standing committee (or committees) of the
CTCR for the preparation of a recommendation to be
presented to the plenary Commission.

c) If the standing committee(s) should determine that the
intended expression of dissent is not, in fact, dissent
from the official, doctrinal position of the Synod, this
shall be reported to the plenary Commission and com-
municated to the dissenter(s) (see point 3b below). An
intended expression of dissent may, for example, reflect
a misunderstanding about the actual position of the
Synod, or express concern about the way in which the
official position and/or practice of the Synod is (or is
not) being implemented in the life of the Synod (e.g., is-
sues that might be most appropriately dealt with by those
entrusted with doctrinal supervision).

d) If the standing committee should determine that the dis-
sent submitted is dissent from the doctrinal position of
the Synod, the committee’s recommendation to the ple-
nary is to include a determination regarding whether or
not there is sufficient basis in the dissent for supporting
the dissenter’ s(’) claim(s) that the doctrinal position of
the Synod is in need of revision.

e) The recommendation shall also include an explanation
or presentation of the theological basis for this determi-
nation. The precise nature of this presentation (e.g.,
length, specificity, argumentation, etc.) is to be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis in light of such factors as
the nature and content of the dissent itself, the signifi-
cance of this issue in the life of the Synod as a whole,
additional or related dissent(s) regarding this issue, etc.

3, Upon the CTCR’ s action relative to the standing committee’ s rec-
ommendation, the Commission’s response to the submission of
dissent shall be handled as follows:

a) It shall be shared promptly with the dissenter(s), along
with a letter from the CTCR staff offering any informa-
tion deemed necessary to help the dissenter(s) under-
stand the nature and purpose of the CTCR’s response in
the context of the synodical guidelines offered in Bylaw
1.8 and the CTCR’s own internal policies.

b) Responses to dissent from the doctrinal position of the
Synod will be reported to the Synod by placing them on-

2007 Convention Workbook

line and including them in the CTCR’s report to the next
synodical convention.

Adopted May 2, 2006

Notes

1. As 1971 Res. 2-21 points out, “The Synod is irrevocably com-
mitted to the Sola Scriptura principle.” At the same time, says this
resolution, “The Synod maintains that it is not a violation of the Sola
Scriptura principle when it adopts doctrinal resolutions, for the
Synod in such resolutions does not presume to establish doctrine,
but intends only to confess doctrines taught by the Scriptures.” The
resolution goes on to say: “Formal commitment of the Synod to a
confessional base is pointless unless the Synod has the right as a
synod to apply its confessional base definitively to current issues
and thus conserve and promote unity and resist an individualism
which breeds schism. The Synod holds that a member cannot justly
charge the Synod with ‘binding his conscience’ when the Synod, in
applying its confessional base to current issues, adopts doctrinal
statements which it believes to be in harmony with the Word of God
and requires that such resolutions be considered normative for every
member. A doctrine of Scripture remains a doctrine of Scripture de-
spite the fact that it is formulated in synodically adopted resolutions.
If a member cannot for conscience’ sake accept a doctrinal resolu-
tion of the Synod, he has the obligation and opportunity through
mutually approved procedure to challenge such a resolution with a
view to effecting the changes he deems necessary. Failing in that,
he is completely free by reason of his wholly voluntary association
with the Synod to obey his conscience and disassociate himself from
the Synod. Meanwhile every member of the Synod is held to abide
by, act, and teach in accordance with the Synod’s resolutions.” The
entire text of 1971 Res. 2-21 is included as an appendix to this re-
sponse (“Appendix A”). All readers of this response are strongly
encouraged to read and/or review this resolution, which articulates
in a clear and careful way the relationship between the Sola Scrip-
tura principle and the adoption of doctrinal resolutions and state-
ments by the Synod.

2. Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events, A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod (April 2004). Hereafter GPCE.

3. “Unionism” is usually understood as “church-fellowship with
the adherents of false doctrine” (Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Po-
sition of the LCMS, page 13 [par. 28]), while “syncretism” typically
refers to the mixing or mingling of “elements of. ..false religions” (i.e.,
non-Christian religions) with the Christian religion (see GPCE, 13).
“Not at issue here [in GPCE],” says the CTCR, “‘is the participation
of LCMS pastors as co-officiants in public worship services convened
as a result of civic events or concerns. ..The LCMS has a clear posi-
tion against ‘taking part in the services and sacramental rites of het-
erodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession’
(LCMS Constitution, Article VI, 2, b.)” (GPCE 7, fn. 8)

4. Church and Ministry, [St. Louis: CPH, 1987], 332. Quota-
tions which follow in this paragraph are also from this edition of
Church and Ministry.

5. Women in the Church, 37.

6. In its 1985 report Women in the Church (on which the 1994
report The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Of-
fices is based) the CTCR states: “God has given to that which has
been created a certain definite order which, because it has been cre-
ated by Him, is the expression of His immutable will. These rela-
tionships belong to the very structure of created existence” (p. 21;
see also pages 22-38).

7. Women in the Church, 37.

8. This opinion can be found in APPENDIX B (pp. 27-30) of
The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices, A
Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (September 1994) with
Guidelines for Congregations prepared by President’s Task Force
(January 2005).

9. See the Report of the Lay Worker Study Committee, 1989
Convention Workbook, 69-73.

10. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, [St. Louis: CPH, 1950]
3:439.