LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 122

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

122

congregations of the Synod not later than 9 months prior
to the 1979 convention for study and response.

Action: Adopted as amended (3).

(The committee replaced its tentative Res. 5-01 with Res.
5.01A. Session 2 declined amendments to 1) add a new
resolved after the 9th resolved, “That the confessional basis
as stipulated in Article Il be preserved”; 2) to delete “and its
Districts” from the first resolved; 3) to add “from nine separate
Districts” after “nine lay persons” in the second resolved. When
discussion was resumed in Session 3, the convention approved
the amendment to add to the second resolved the words “with
no more than three members from any one District.” It declined
to strike the words “together with” and to substitute the word
“reject” in the 8th resolved and to substitute “praesidium” for
“Council of Administrators” in the last line of the 4th resolved
and in the 5th resolved. The resolution was then adopted as
amended. In Session 11 the floor committee added Overtures
5-66A-—E as referrals to the proposed Task Force.)

To Deal with District Presidents
Who Have Ordained or Who Have
Authorized Ordination of Persons

Who Are Not Properly Endorsed

RESOLUTION 5-02A

Overtures 5-14, 5-15, 5-109, 5-110, 5-112--5-139E, 5-
150A—5-152 (CW, pp. 221, 247248, 249—258, 261—
262)

Preamble

An introductory word regarding the matter of dealing
with District Presidents who have ordained or authorized
ordination of persons that are not properly endorsed.

Because we face an emergency situation in our Synod
today in which certain officers in the Synod, and in
particular certain District Presidents, feel that they can-
not abide by those parts of the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod dealing with the endorsement of candidates
for the holy ministry, it is good to remember the necess-
ity of church government and the careful distinction
between the Power and Office of the Keys and human
rites and ordinances in church government.

The need for church government arises from the need
to do all things decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), so
that the Gospel can be preached and the sacraments be
administered efficiently for the benefit of all. A part of
this need is the necessity of training, electing, and
calling only such men for the holy ministry that are
properly trained and qualified, so that the congregations
which make up a Synod or church can be assured that
the men they install as pastors are qualified in every
way. Such government, in the form and polity that
exists, is of human authority and can be altered at
human will. The Office of the Keys, that is, the authority
and mandate to proclaim the Gospel and administer the
sacraments, is on the other hand by divine right (Matt.
28:19ff.), and cannot be altered by human desire or will.
Church government can change, but the Gospel and
sacraments can never change.

While the desire to change government arises out of
the human will, it ought to be motivated by the Gospel,
and such change be made for the purpose of proclaiming
the Gospel and administering the sacraments. In the

RESOLUTIONS

process of such change of church government, it is most
important to keep in mind such distinction between
human right of church government and the divine right
of the Office of the Keys. This distinction becomes essen-
tial and crucial, especially when change of church gov-
ernment is being motivated by the Gospel and for the
sake of the Gospel, lest the Gospel become entangled
with human ordinances. The Lutheran Confessions
speak to this point when they say, “. . . according to the
Gospel the power of keys or the power of bishops is a
power and command of God to preach the Gospel, to
forgive and retain sins, and to administer and distribute
the sacraments” (AC XXVIH, p. 81:5). But concerning
church government they say, “It is lawful for bishops or
pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly
in the church, not that thereby we should merit grace or
make satisfactions for sins or that consciences be bound
to judge them as necessary services and to think that it
is a sin to break them without offense to others” (AC
XXVIID. It is thus necessary to always keep this distinc-
tion, so that the human ordinances of church government
and rites never ‘become a part of the Gospel and its
proclamation, as if they were component parts of it.

Yet church government is necessary as a human aid
for maintaining the unity of the Gospel and for the sake
of love and peace. It is proper then, “that the churches
should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and
tranquility . . . that all things be done in the churches in
order and without confusion” (AC XXVII). So we have on
the one hand the command of God to proclaim the Gospel
and administer the sacraments together with the divine
origin of the holy ministry (Matt. 28:16-20; 1 Tim. 3:1ff),
while on the other hand we have human ordinances in
church government that guide us as to how this is to be
done, in particular the training, endorsement, electing,
and calling of men to the holy ministry. Our Lutheran
fathers were very conscious of this, for they held, “It is
taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or
preach or administer the sacraments in the church with-
out a regular call” (AC XIV). os

/ The intent and purpose of the founding fathers of The

{ Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod was to provide an |

\ orderly framework within which the task of preaching
‘the Gospel and administering the sacraments could be
carried out in such a way that the purity of the Gospel be
maintained, the unity of the true faith be promoted, and
men be trained for the holy ministry (Constitution, Arti-
cle III, 1, 3). Congregations were asked to ordain and/or
install only such men who had a regular call, that is,
men who had been endorsed by established synodical
procedure and who, through accepted synodical proce-
dure, received a recognized call (Constitution, Article VI,
3, 6; Bylaw 4.01ff.) When such accepted synodical proce-
dure is not followed, not only is the image given that the
Synod is confused and divided, but that the public doc-
trine of the Gospel taught by the Synod is being ques-
tioned. As a result the “weak in faith . . . will be
scandalized; some will doubt if the pure doctrine can
coexist among us with such divisions” (FC SD).

Certainly the Synod does not mean that by such
divisions over human procedure for the training and