Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1975 · 51st Convention › Page 98
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 98
front matter 1
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 33
Page 34
Sheet 36
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Sheet 40
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Sheet 50
Page 50
Sheet 52
Page 53
Sheet 54
Sheet 55
Page 57
Sheet 57
Page 4
Sheet 59
Sheet 60
Sheet 61
Page 5
Sheet 63
Page 7
Sheet 65
Sheet 66
Sheet 67
Sheet 68
Page 71
Page 7
Sheet 71
Sheet 72
Sheet 73
Sheet 74
Sheet 75
Sheet 76
Sheet 77
Sheet 78
Page 80
Sheet 80
Page 82
Page 83
Sheet 83
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Sheet 113
Sheet 114
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Sheet 122
Sheet 123
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Sheet 129
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Sheet 135
Page 138
Page 139
Page 141
Page 142
Sheet 140
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
98 RESOLUTIONS
(Note that Bylaw 2.85 c 2, “Financial Duties,” states:
“The Board of Directors [of the Synod] alone may author-
ize the solicitation of funds by any person, board, com-
mission, or agency in the Synod at large and shall have
‘the authority to regulate the collection of funds from
congregations and the Synod at large beyond the confines
of any one District in accordance with policies adopted by
the delegate convention of the Synod. There shall be no
such solicitation of funds by any person, board, commis-
sion, agency, or corporation without the approval of the
Board of Directors, provided that nothing herein con-
tained shall be construed to interfere with District or
local financial undertakings where the collection of funds
is confined to the District or a local area.”)
6. Even more recent developments in ELIM include
the announcement of the possibility of providing “for the
exploration of a possible alternate form of teacher educa-
tion in the Synod” (Missouri in Perspective, May 26,
1975).
The actions taken by ELIM during the past several
years have been justified by that organization as being
necessary expressions of their dissent against the actions
of the Synod. Yet it should be noted that nowhere does
the Synod condemn proper dissent, but rather makes
adequate provisions for the same. Bylaw 1.09, “Relations
of the Synod to Its Members,” states that “While retain-
ing the right of brotherly dissent, members of the Synod
are expected as part of the life together within the
synodical fellowship to honor and to uphold the resolu-
tions of the Synod. If such resolutions are of a doctrinal
nature, dissent is to be expressed first within the fellow-
ship of peers, then brought to the attention of the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations before finding
expression as an overture to the convention calling for
revision or recision. While the conscience of the dissenter
shall be respected, the consciences of others, as well as
the collective will of the Synod, shall also be respected.”
In view of these developments within our beloved
Synod, the following resolution is herewith proposed.
Wuereas, A democratic organization must always be
open to responsible comment and criticism with respect
to how it functions in carrying out its objectives; and
WuHerEas, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is
not only a democratic organization which adopts the
principle set forth above but, of much greater importance,
it is an organization of God’s people, carrying out God’s
mission, and is therefore bound by the love of God to be
open to responsible comment and criticism; and
Wuereas, There may have been times in the past and
there may be times in the future when those who would
level responsible criticism within the Synod feel a need
to gather together in an organization, the purpose of
which is to coordinate many voices into one and to
express their comment and criticism in a meaningful
way; and
Wuereas, An organization such as is described above
must be dedicated to the principle that in its functioning,
indeed in its very being, it must not become a com-
peting organization, with competing or alternate pro-
grams to those of the Synod to which its members belong
and which it seeks to strengthen and improve, for in
such competition is the seed not of strengthening and -
improving but of weakening and of replacing; and
Wuereas, Although the organization known as ELIM
(Evangelical Lutherans in Mission) is not, per se, an
organization to be condemned in that the opportunity for
such an organization to be of service to God and His
church is indeed great, nevertheless, the way in which
ELIM has functioned since its creation has, in significant
part, been in violation of the precepts set forth above,
especially in its support of a competing seminary, its
establishment of a competing mission program, its en-
couragement of congregations to withhold financial sup-
port from the Synod and to call uncertified men as
pastors, and its announcement that it is interested in
initiating an alternate system of teacher education:
therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod, with great anguish and
regret, declare that the way in which ELIM functions is
schismatic and therefore in violation of the first object of
the Synod: “The conservation and promotion of the unity
of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and a united
defense against schism and sectarianism (Rom. 16:17)”;
and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod declare that those members
of the Synod (congregations, pastors, and teachers) who
play active roles in planning and/or carrying out the
schismatic functions referred to above are, by such active
roles, acting inconsistently with their membership in the
Synod, are failing to cooperate with the Synod, and are
giving offense in their conduct; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod declare that individuals
who hold positions with the Synod, with a District of the
Synod, or with other organizations owned and controlled
by the Synod who play active roles in planning, publiciz-
ing, and/or carrying out the schismatic functions re-
ferred to above are by such active roles failing to cooper-
ate with the Synod and are giving offense in their
conduct; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod request its congregations,
officers, and boards to minister evangelically and pastor-
ally with those under their supervision who play active
roles in planning and/or carrying out the schismatic
functions referred to above to the end that by such
admonition they (i) cease such roles, or (ii) disassociate
themselves from ELIM so long as it continues those
schismatic functions, or (iii) in conscience terminate
their membership in the Synod rather than to continue
to act so as to divide and weaken it; and be it further
Resolved, That in the case of those officers of the
Synod and members of the faculties of synodical institu-
tions with whom patient and pastoral admonition has
proven futile, appropriate action be taken on the basis
of the synodical Handbook; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod, for itself and for all its
officers and boards, does again pledge that it is still
willing to listen and discuss issues and grievances at all
appropriate levels, that its actions and decisions shall be