LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 397

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
own conscience. On the other hand, however, Luther saw the conscience as basically being under
the authority of Holy Scripture. We therefore have no basis for interpreting Luther as teaching
that the conscience is autonomous.”76 Second, the conscience bound to the Holy Scriptures
cannot but confess what the Holy Scriptures teach. One example of this is that of Luther
confessing the Lord’s Supper against Zwingli’s denial at Marburg. Luther was certainly not
prepared to respect Zwingli’s interpretation as an alternative even though, no doubt, Zwingli’s
conscience was bound to it. Similarly, Erasmus was conscience bound to defend the freedom of
the human will but Luther could not let this Gospel-denying teaching go unchallenged. Third,
Wengert implies that the dispute over homosexuality is merely a matter of law and ethics. Seen
from the clear teaching of Holy Scriptures, the issue of homosexuality cannot be divorced from
the doctrine of the Triune God and His work in creation, redemption, and sanctification. The
biblical doctrine of man created in the image of God as male and female is at stake here.
Wengert offers other examples from Luther’s own biography in an attempt to show that Luther
utilized the category of “bound conscience” to allow for flexibility in theological and moral
issues. Presented as examples of such flexibility are Luther’s pastoral instinct in allowing the
laity to receive only Christ’s body in the Sacrament after Karlstadt’s premature, over-zealous
liturgical reform in 1521 in Wittenberg and the “Visitation Articles” of 1528.
The case of Luther’s advice regarding the bigamy of Philip of Hesse is likewise used by Wengert
as an example of Luther acting against the church’s understanding of marriage for the sake of a
weak Christian. Philip of Hesse was married to Christina, the daughter of Duke George of
Albertine Saxony in 1523. Philip was nineteen years old at the time of the marriage. Although he
claimed that "he never had any love or desire for her on account of her form, fragrance, and
manner,"77 he fathered seven children with Christina. Through Martin Bucer, Philip contacted
Luther and sought his endorsement in taking another wife. In what Luther thought was a private,
pastoral piece of advice, Luther reluctantly concurred that a second marriage would be better
than a scandalous divorce or open fornication. Philip publicized Luther's pastoral advice to
defend his bigamy.
It seems that Luther sees Philip caught between two wrongs—divorce and bigamy. In light of the
fact that God permitted the patriarchs to have multiple wives, Luther concludes that less damage
would be done if Philip took a second wife secretly without divorcing Christina. Luther's advice
to Philip would be in keeping with a comment he made in 1520 in The Babylonian Captivity of
the Church: "As to divorce, it is still a question for debate whether it is allowable. For my part I
so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to it; but whether it is allowable I do not
venture to decide."78
Luther thought that his advice was given under "the seal of the confession" and was the best that
could be offered under the circumstances. In defending his advice he recalled the words of one of
76

Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work, translated by Robert C. Schultz
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 59. Here one might also note Luther’s discussion of “conscience” in his 1522
postil on “The Gospel for the Festival of Epiphany” in AE 52: 244-286. Luther argues that “Christian faith cannot
exist alongside of such allegiance or duty-bound conscience” (244), as though the consciences of the Magi were
bound to follow Herod’s decree that they report to him the location of the infant Jesus.
77
Theodore Tappert (editor and translator), Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel (Vancouver, British Columbia:
Regent College Press, 1955), 288.
78
AE 36: 105.

397

his teachers: "Alas, these cases are so confused and desperate that neither wisdom, law, nor
reason can be of any help. They must be committed to God's mercy."79 Luther did not see his
attempt at making the best of a bad situation as establishing a precedent for pastoral or churchly
practice in cases of marriage. Much less should it be invoked as an endorsement of homosexual
unions. This and other examples drawn from Luther by Wengert are cases of strategic pastoral
care that are open to criticism. They are certainly not evidence that Luther departs from the Holy
Scripture to institute something that is contrary to the revealed will of God.80
Luther recognized that a conscience bound to false teaching is, in fact, endangered and in need of
correction for the sake of its salvation. Wengert misses the mark when he says that “concern for
the bound conscience is not simply a matter of toleration for different points but more
profoundly realizing that the neighbor’s conscience is bound to a totally different, perhaps even
incorrect, understanding of the matter and that to uproot that understanding would shake the
neighbor’s faith and trust in God’s mercy and forgiveness” (Wengert, 6).
Wengert also takes up a discussion of Christian freedom in relationship to adiaphora. His
treatment of Article X of the Formula of Concord is misleading as it would extend the category
of “adiaphora” to embrace sexual practices that God’s Word has not instituted and, in fact, would
encourage practices that God condemns.81
Finally, Wengert concludes his document with a discussion of “enthusiasm.” He cites the
Smalcald Articles III:8.3-9 where Luther asserts that the devil tempts and entices people away
from the external Word to their own imaginations of who God is and what He desires. In a
strange turn, Wengert suggests that those who insist on the clarity of Scripture on matters about
which Christian fervently disagree might be enthusiasts. For Luther, however, it was rather the
Word of God that governs everything in Christ’s holy church and thus guards against
enthusiasm. Conscience may be bound by false interpretations of the Word of God. The pastoral
response can never be merely tolerance or respect when God’s truth and the salvation of those
ensnared in sin is at stake.
Adopted by the CTCR
April 27, 2012

79
Tappert, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, 290.
80
Here see Reinhard Slenczka, “When the Church Ceases to be Church” in The Banff Commission, edited by K.
Glen Johnson (Delhi, New York: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, 2008), 37-50. Slenckza writes “The church
is in no way a democracy but she is a Christocracy. Spiritual authority is not a political authority, otherwise this
would be a state church or a church state. In his disputation on the authority of councils Luther puts it this way:
‘Christ has authority and His word, neither majority nor minority. Therefore we must distinguish truly, eagerly, and
intelligently if Christ said so or not. If he said so, we have to accept this; if not we must refuse it’ (Disputatio de
protestate councilii, WA 39, I, 194, 10-13)” (43).
81
See Olson, “Adiaphora, Mandata, Damnabilia, 22-25. Also see the extensive treatment by Albert Collver III,
“According to Nature, Adiaphora, and Ordination” in Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal, 249-266.

25

26

2010 Convention Proceedings
pp. 113-114

2010 Convention Proceedings
pp. 113-114

To Commend ILC and Task Force Statements as Responses
to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions

God has promised to all who trust in His forgiving mercy through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord” (“Theological Implications,” 2010 CW, p. 17); therefore be it

RESOLUTION 3-01A

Resolved, That the LCMS join with the ILC in declaring “our resolve to approach those with homosexual
inclinations with the deepest possible Christian love and pastoral concern, in whatever situation they may be living”
(“Same-Gender Relationships,” 2010 CW, p. 66); and be it further

WHEREAS, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) at its August 2009 Churchwide
Assembly in Minneapolis resolved to recognize “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender
relationships” as morally acceptable and to authorize the ordination into pastoral ministry of individuals who are
living in such relationships; and

Resolved, That the LCMS recognize that “Our Lord’s intentional outreach to those who were marginalized
and excluded during His earthly ministry is a reminder that the Scriptural judgments against homosexual behavior
must not become the cause for hatred, violence, or an unwillingness to extend the Gospel’s promises of forgiveness
and reconciliation to the homosexual or any person caught in sin’s traps” (“Theological implications,”
2010 CW, p. 15); and be it further

Overtures 3-11–12 (CW, p. 168)

WHEREAS, The Bible plainly forbids all same-gender genital sexual activity as contrary to the will of God
and contrary to nature (e.g., Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10); and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that God created man and woman for one another and that, according to
His blessing and design, they may be united in marriage and become one flesh in the sexual union which also may
result in the procreation of children (Gen. 1:26–28; Gen. 2:18–25); and
WHEREAS, Our Lord warns us about the danger of false teaching (e.g., Matt. 7:15–17); and
WHEREAS, The ELCA actions have received wide publicity in our nation’s press, and many may think that
all “Lutherans” share these beliefs; and
WHEREAS, Many Lutherans and other Christians throughout the world have expressed dismay over and
disagreement with the ELCA resolutions and the fact that they depart from Holy Scripture and 2000 years of
Christian tradition; and
WHEREAS, The International Lutheran Council (ILC), comprising 34 member churches, unanimously
adopted the statement “Same-Gender Relationships and the Church” in opposition to the claims of various Lutheran
church bodies “that sexually active, same-gender relationships are an acceptable way of life for Christians” (2010
Convention Workbook [CW], p. 66); and

Resolved, That the LCMS affirm that love for the neighbor includes not only that we accept and welcome
(Luke 15:1–2) our neighbor as a fellow human creature for whom Christ has died and risen, but also that we speak
the truth of God’s Word to our neighbor; and be it further
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention commend the statement of the ILC, “Same-Gender Relationships and the Church,” for study and reference; and be it further
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention commend the President’s task force statement, “Theological
Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions,” for study and reference; and be it finally
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention affirm that




WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has been asked by individuals, organizations, congregations, national church bodies, and others to declare its understanding of these issues; and



WHEREAS, It would be unloving and uncaring for the LCMS to take no action with respect to the heterodox
actions of the ELCA; and



WHEREAS, Holy Scripture calls us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15; see also 2 Thess. 2:10; 1 Peter
1:22; 2 John 1:1) and such love involves heart-felt concern, tenderness, and humility (1 Peter 3:8; see also Eph. 4:2;
Col. 3:12); and
WHEREAS, President Gerald B. Kieschnick has on several occasions spoken publicly in opposition to the
decisions regarding homosexuality by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly (e.g., 2010 CW, pp. 12–13) and also formed
the Task Force on Theological Implications of the 2009 ELCA Decisions; and

“[W]here the Bible speaks clearly regarding matters of human values, conduct, or behavior, such
teachings may not be denied or qualified, but must have continuing relevance in every era of the
Church” (“Theological Implications,” 2010 CW, p. 15);
“[T]he LCMS believes and teaches that same-gender genital sexual activity—in every situation—
violates the will of our Creator and must be recognized as sin” (“Theological Implications,” 2010
CW, p. 15);
“Though we affirm the demands of God’s Law without reservation, we Christians confess that the
sins of the world have been forgiven through Christ’s suffering and death on the cross” (“SameGender Relationships,” 2010 CW, p. 66);
“Loving, compassionate recognition of the deep pain and personal struggles that same-sex
inclinations produce in many individuals, families, and congregations may not be neglected in the
name of moral purity” (“Theological Implications,” 2010 CW, p. 15); and
“The healing voice of Jesus—Sacred Scripture—seeks to lead us into the richness of the life God
intends for us. Prohibitions against adultery, homosexuality, and promiscuity of any sort are kind
words, warning us against behavior that would diminish or destroy human wholeness”
(“Theological Implications,” 2010 CW, p. 15).

Action: Adopted (6)
(After Res. 3-01A was formally introduced, debate was ended immediately and the resolution was adopted as presented
[Yes: 1,133; No: 35].)

WHEREAS, The task force unanimously adopted a statement, which the President endorsed and published,
responding to the ELCA Churchwide Assembly actions (March 15, 2010—see 2010 CW, pp.14–18); and
WHEREAS, LCMS leaders have discussed the task force document with ELCA leaders; and
WHEREAS, This issue “impacts the Gospel itself. A church body’s acceptance of homosexual activity
promotes a false security about behavior and conduct which God has forbidden and from which He longs to redeem
us. As such, it leads to a false gospel: to self-justification rather than that justification for repentant sinners which

2013 Convention Workbook