LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 18−19, 2005, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

54. Interpretation of Convention Resolution 2-08A (05-2419)
In a February 15, 2005 letter, the pastors of two circuits of a district of the Synod asked a series of
questions regarding LCMS 2004 Resolution 2-08A, “To Commend Preaching and Teaching Creation.”
After lengthy discussion, the Commission responded to the questions as follows, recommending that the
questions also be re-directed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations without reference to
LCMS 2004 Resolution 2-08A.
Question 1: Does LCMS 2004 Resolution 2-08A equate taxonomic species with the created kinds of
Genesis, chapter 1?
Opinion: Since the term “taxonomic species” does not occur in Resolution 2-08A, this question as asked
is outside of the Commission’s responsibility to interpret the resolutions of the Synod (Bylaw 3.9.2.2).
Question 2: Does this resolution declare fixity of species to be biblical revelation and doctrine? If so, how
is the confirmed appearance of new species to be understood and explained in agreement with
Scripture?
Opinion: Since the term “fixity of species” does not occur in Resolution 2-08A, this question as asked is
also outside of the Commission’s responsibility to interpret the resolutions of the Synod.
Question 3: Does this resolution bind the educational institutions and agencies of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod and the Synod’s members to use of the equivocal terms microevolution and
macroevolution?
Opinion: This resolution does not bind the Synod’s educational institutions, that is, its colleges,
universities, and seminaries, to the use of the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” (“agencies of
the Synod” does not include early childhood programs, elementary schools, and high schools unless they
are directly associated with one of the Synod’s colleges, universities, or seminaries—see paragraph (a) of
Bylaw 1.2.1). The resolution does require that the Synod’s educational institutions “properly distinguish
between micro and macro evolution and affirm the scriptural revelation that God has created all species
‘according to their kinds.’”
Question 4: If the answers to the foregoing questions are negative, how may the Synod’s members and
educational institutions and agencies rightly judge the faithfulness of their teaching in relation
to this resolution? How should this resolution be interpreted and applied?
Opinion: Faithfulness of teaching and application of resolutions are matters of ecclesiastical supervision
in our Synod and are the responsibility of its President and district presidents (Constitution Art. XI B 4,
XII 7 and 9 a; Bylaws 1.2.1 (f), 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.1.1, 3.3.1.2 (a), 4.4.2, 4.4.5, et al.).
Question 5: How might this resolution be clarified and improved by the Synod in future conventions?
Opinion: Overtures may be submitted to conventions of the Synod to offer clarification or improvement
for resolutions previously adopted by the Synod (Bylaw 3.1.6.2). It is not the responsibility of the
Commission to suggest such actions but to “examine all reports and overtures to the Synod…to determine
their agreement in content and language with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod (Bylaw
3.9.2.2.1).

24