LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 96

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

96 RESOLUTIONS

they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am
bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience
has been taken captive by the Word of God, and Yam neither
able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to
act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”

To the person troubled in his conscience, the Synod says:

“If a member cannot for conscience sake accept a doc-
trinal resolution of the Synod, he has the obligation and
opportunity through mutually approved procedure to chal-
lenge such a resolution with a view of 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.”
(Milwaukee Resolution 2-21, 1971 Proceedings, p. 119).

Subscription to A Statement cannot be a requirement for
membership in the Synod. However, already at the Cleve-
land convention in 1962, the Synod resolved “that the Synod
beseech all its members by the mercies of God to honor and
uphold the doctrinal content of these synodically adopted
statements” (Cleveland Resolution 3-17, 1962 Proceedings,
p. 106). And “to honor and uphold means not merely to
examine and study them, but to support, act, and teach in
accordance with them until they have been shown to be
contrary to God’s Word.” (Milwaukee Resolution 2-21, 1971
Proceedings, p. 119);

and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm that A Statement is
in accord with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confes-
sions, and contains nothing contrary to them, and is in
accord with the doctrinal position of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod as it has been taught histori-
cally and expressed in the official doctrinal statements of
the Synod (N.O. Resolution 3-01, 1973 Proceedings, pp.
127—128).

Action: Adopted (9).

(In introducing Res. 3-05 in Session 6, the floor committee
made several changes in wording: 1. “reference and guidance” in
the first two resolveds; 2. addition of “in A Statement” in the 3rd
resolved; 3. Elimination of the definition of “anonymous Chris-
tian” from Point 1. A motion to consider Overture 3-57A as a
substitute was declined. A request for a count revealed that the
convention was indeed willing (by a vote of 498 to 497) to
consider Overture 3-64A as a substitute. The time for further
discussion had elapsed. When discussion was resumed in Session
9, a motion was made to amend Standing Rule No. 4 to allow
each speaker one minute instead of two. The chair ruled that
this motion had been passed by thé required two thirds. The
assembly by a voice vote declined the request for a count. The
delegates asked to hear a report from the chairman of the
Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Conciliation. After the
question had been called, the convention rejected Overture 3-
64A as a substitute for Res. 3-05 and then adopted Res. 3-05.)

To Declare the Synod’s Position on
Evangelical Lutherans in Mission
(ELIM)

RESOLUTION 3-06

Overtures 3-40, 3-131A, 3-131B, 3-175—3-200 (CW, pp.
74, 102, 113—121) ;

Historical Background

On July 24, 1973, a majority of those who then
constituted the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis,
issued a document entitled “A Declaration of Protest and
Confession,” which was signed by 49 faculty and staff
members of the seminary.

This document made a number of allegations and on
the basis of these, protests were lodged against:
a) The {New Orleans] convention’s judgment that we

teach false doctrine which “cannot be tolerated in the church
of God.”

b) The [New Orleans] convention’s violation of the proce-
dures for evangelical discipline clearly outlined in the Syn-
od’s Constitution and Bylaws.

__,c) The [New Orleans] convention’s breach of contract in
judging and condemning us by a doctrinal standard different
from the doctrinal article of the Constitution (Article II).

d) The {New Orleans] convention’s violation of the prin-
ciple of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) in elevating tradi-
tion above Scripture.

e) The [New Orleans] convention’s use of coercive power
to establish the true doctrine of the Scriptures.

f) The [New Orleans] convention’s unconstitutional act of
altering the Synod’s confessional standard.

In the same document the signers stated: “We call
upon our brothers and sisters to join in a common
movement of protest and confession within the Synod.”

At a conference held Aug. 28-29 and attended by
about 850 members of our church body, “immediate and
decisive action” was called for as “our Synod has reached
a crisis point because of the New Orleans convention.” It
was stated that “We are in grave danger of sacrificing
our evangelical heritage because of mistrust, and be-
cause of a desire on the part of some for complete
conformity in interpreting every detail of the Holy Scrip-
tures.” An accompanying document (In the Name of
Jesus Christ and for the Sake of the Gospel) charged that
New Orleans Resolutions 2-12, 3-01, 3-09, and 3-12A
were “errant actions of the majority at the New Orleans
convention.” It was also stated that “We declare null and
void any attempt to make resolutions of men binding
upon us.”

In a letter addressed “to the members of The Lu-
theran Church—Missouri Synod,” dated Sept. 25, 1973,
and signed “The Board of Directors, ELIM,” it was
revealed that an organization (ELIM) had come into
being in Chicago.

It should be noted here that the Commission on
Constitutional Matters has since ruled that New Orleans
Resolutions 2-12, 3-01, and 3-09, to which the document
addresses itself, were not unconstitutional (CW, pp. 206—
207), and that Resolution 3-09 “rejects what has been
referred to as a ‘faculty majority position’” rather than
condemning the faculty majority members as teachers of
false doctrine. Also, the doctrinal standard used to judge

.the “faculty majority position” was Article II of the

synodical Constitution and not a “different” one (Res. 3-
09, 1973 Proceedings, pp. 133—139).

Shortly thereafter an 8-page pamphlet (entitled
ELIM) was circulated in the Synod which defined the
ELIM symbols and which presented the organization’s
goals, specific objectives, programs, and services. Mis-
souri in Perspective, a biweekly newspaper, was listed as
a means to inform people about the issues in the church.
The pamphlet called for financial support of the move-
ment. Significantly, the stated goals and objectives are
quite broad, similar to those of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod as presented in Article III of the Consti-
tution of the Synod.