LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 10, 1960, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

cael Bree ~eer

saree

axe

Pace

Rev. Dan R. Ludwig Page Three March 30, 1961

matters by majority vote, binding the consciences
of their constituency.

4. We believe it to be unwise, dangerous to the health
of the whole church, and unevangelical not to give
the whole church a knowledge and a voice in the
formulation of its Public Doctrinal Statements to
which it will be conscience-bound, before such bind-
ing action is taken by Synod in legal session, Reso-
lution Number 9 does not provide this safeguard to
our church. We believe this is not the spirit of the
Constitution of Synod.

Points 1 and 2 are obvious and need no further discussion.

We think that Point 3 is an incorrect portrayal of a Synodical Convention. Synod,
as an organization composed of congregations, pastors and teachers can legislate
only through representation. Since the size of Synod makes it impossible for
every member of Synod to participate in a convention, or even for every congre~
gation to be represented by at least one of its members, the Synodical. Consti-
tution provides for representation by delegates elected by groups of congregations.
When these representatives meet in a regularly called Convention they, in effect,
are the body of the Church and the resolutions adopted by these representatives,
even though they constitute only a Small group in proportion to the total member-
ship of our Church, must nevertheless be considered as the expression of the
Church body and must be considered as valid and binding unless they are in con-
flict with the Word of God or inexpedient as far as the condition of an individual
congregation is concerned, (Article VII; Bylaw 1.09). .

The question of congregational expediency, or course, is not involved in the
present case. Accordingly, the validity of Resolution Number 9 depends, in
large measure, on whether or not it is contrary to the Word of God and not whether

it was adopted by a small representation of the Church.

Point Number 4 is more tenable. In a sense it contradicts Point Number 3 because
it assumes that Synod, when in legal session, may take binding action on doctrinal
statements. As pointed out before, a legal session of Synod is composed of elected
representatives of groups of congregations and necessarily constitutes only 2
small part of the total membership of the Church. The real objection to Reso-
lution Number 9 fails to provide the opportunity to give the whole church a
knowledge and voice in the formulation of its Public Doctrinal Statements to

which it will be conscience bound.

Only the Brief Statement is mentioned in the preamble of Resolution Number 9.

The Brief Statement was adopted by Delegate Synod in 1932 as the result of a
resolution adopted by Delegate Synod in 1929. It was published and submitted to

all congregations in ample time before its adoption. It was discussed in congre-
gational meetings and pastoral conferences. The whole church had a knowledge

of and a voice in its adoption. It was reaffirmed at several subsequent conventions.
Although they are not mentioned in Resolution Number 9, the same practice was
followed with regard to The Common Confession, Parts I and II and with regard

to the Statement on Scripture. While Resolution Number 9 does not specifically