LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 83

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 83

spirit of the Formula of Concord we urge sisters and brothers
in other Districts to constitute their own District committee for
reconciling dialog in the spirit of our own District committee to
(1) work in communication with the synodical Advisory Com-
mittee on Doctrine and Conciliation; (2) develop small forums of
meaningful dialog among the pastors, teachers, and lay persons
within their Districts; and (3) as soon as possible propose to the
Synod paths of concord and justice that can lead us out of the
current wilderness; and be it finally

Resolved. That we declare our commitment to continue to
walk together with one another, to listen to one another, to
speak the truth in love, and to stop the tragic damage to God-
given people as casualties in a raging conflict.

Northern Illinois District
Walter F. Fisher, Secretary

3-66
To Repeal N. O. Res. 3-01

WHEREAS, The Synod’s Constitution, Articles VIII, Section
C, states concerning resolutions at synodical meetings: ‘All
matters of doctrine and of conscience shall be decided only by
the Word of God. All other matters shall be decided by a ma-
jority vote’; and

WHEREAS, Resolution 3-01 of the New Orleans convention
adopted A Statement in all its parts to be Scriptural and in
accord with the Lutheran Confessions and binding upon the
pastors and congregations of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, This in effect adds to Article II of the Synod’s
Constitution; and

WHEREAS, This is being used throughout the Synod as a
standard of orthodoxy for pastors and teachers and a statement
to be signed by the ‘faithful’; and

WHEREAS, This was adopted at New Orleans by a majority
vote; therefore be it

Resolved. That the Synod in convention in Anaheim repeal
Resolution 3-01 as being in violation of the Synod’s Constitution
and of congregational autonomy.

Zion Lutheran Church
Westwood, N. J.

Charles L. Maul Jr., President
B. Dianne Jordans, Secretary
Norman Brinkmann, Pastor

3-67A

To Reaffirm New Orleans Convention
Resolution 3-01

WHEREAS, Resolution 3-01 adopted at the New Orleans
convention declares A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional
Principles ‘“‘in all its parts, to be Scriptural and in accord with
the Lutheran Confessions, and therefore a formulation which
derives its authority from the Word of God and which expresses
the Synod’s position on current doctrinal issues” and ‘ta ‘more
formal and comprehensive statement of belief’ in the sense of
Resolution 5-24 of the 1971 Milwaukee convention” and that
“A Statement shall hold the status defined in said resolution’’:
and

WHEREAS, Some in our church have objected to the Synod’s
adoption of Resolution 3-01 on constitutional grounds and/or
on the grounds of some of A Statement’s theological formula-
tions; and

WHEREAS, The Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters has responded to the concerns regarding the constitution-
ality of the adoption of Resolution 3-01 by issuing on May 17,
1974, the following opinion on this resolution:

Since the Synod has the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions, it

also had the right to adopt Resolution 3-01.

In Resolution 3-01 the Synod approved a document known as

A Statement. That document therefore comes under the provision of

New Orleans Resolution 2-12: ‘That the Synod reaffirm its position

(Milwaukee Proceedings. Res. 2-21 and 5-24) that such statements,

insofar as they are in accord with the Scriptures and the pattern of

doctrine set forth in the Lutheran Symbols, are, pursuant to Article
II of the Synod’s Constitution, binding upon all its members (cf. also
Article VID.”

However, the Synod cannot make A Statement binding upon its
members in the same sense in which the Scripture is binding. Nor
can it ask its members to bind themselves to A Statement in the same
manner in which they freely bind themselves to the Lutheran Con-
fessions.

Resolution 3-01 does not broaden the confessional base of the
Synod. It was not offered as a constitutional amendment. It is to be
recognized as a properly adopted resolution. In it the Synod de-
termined that A Statement defines the corporate position of the Synod
and sets forth the public teaching of the Synod.

The adoption of Resolution 3-01 by the Synod does not bind the
individual conscience any more than any other human document
can; only Scripture should bind the conscience. As Luther stated
before the Diet of Worms:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures
or evident reason (for I believe neither in the Pope nor Councils
alone, since it has been established that 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 I am 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 doctrinal
resolution of the Synod, he has the obligation and opportunity through
mutually approved procedure to challenge such a resolution with
a view to 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.” (Mil-
waukee Resolution 2-21, 1971 Proceedings. page 119).

Subscription to A Statement cannot be a requirement for mem-
bership in the Synod. However, already at the Cleveland 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."’ (Resolution 3-17, 1962 Pro-
ceedings. 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); and

WHEREAS, The Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church
Relations has responded to the expressions of concern it had
received regarding certain of A Statement’s theological formula-
tions by issuing in September 1974 the commission’s Report on
Dissent from A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Prin-
ciples and Other Doctrinal Resolutions of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod and stating in part in this document’s conclusion:

In the interest of clarification at certain points in ‘‘A Statement,”
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations makes the fol-
lowing recommendations:

1. That future reprints of “A Statement” add to Article I a foot-
note explaining the term ‘anonymous Christians,” to wit: people in
pagan cultures who through the influence in their lives of the uni-
versal lordship of Christ have given themselves to selfless service
of others even though they have not yet learned from the preaching
of the Gospel the name of Him under whom they live and by whose
grace they have been transformed.

2. That Article II, while rightly ascribing an instructional function
to the law, express more explicitly the accusing function of the law
so that it is clearly stated that the law always instructs in such a way
that it at the same time shows the need for constant repentance in
the life of Christians.

3. That Article III contain an additional antithesis rejecting any
view of the church's mission that fails to recognize the witness value
of deeds of love which flow from faith.

4. That Article IV contain a statement on prophecy that recog-
nizes and expresses the broader connotations of the term “prophecy”
in the Old Testament:

and also:

It must also be said that an examination of the major criticisms
of the theological formulations and content of ‘‘A Statement'’ has
shown no cause why the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions should alter its opinion of November 21, 1972:

“We find the doctrinal content of ‘A Statement’ to be in accord
with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and to contain
nothing contrary to them. We also find the doctrinal content of ‘A
Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles’ to be in accord
with the doctrinal position of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
as it has been taught historically and expressed in the official doc-
trinal statements of the Synod”: therefore be it

Resolved. That The Lutheran Church-— Missouri Synod, as-
sembled in convention at (1) reaffirm New Orleans synodical