LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 462

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

462

REPORT ON DISSENT

REPORT ON DISSENT

from
A Statement of Scriptural
and
Confessional Principles
and
Other Doctrinal Resolutions of
The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod

A Report of the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations

The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod
September 1974

Constitution without following the procedures set down in Article
XIV and adds to the contessional base of the Synod:

2. The adoption of “A Statement’ amounts to establishing doctrine
by a majority vote contrary to Article Vill C of the Constitution which
Provides that ‘all matters of doctrine and conscience shall be de-
cided only by the Word of God

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has taken objections of this
nature under consideration and has rendered a ruling which has been
published in The Lutheran Witness. the official organ of the Synod

While it 1s not within the province of the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations to deal with constitutional issues. the CTCA concurs
with the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters and supports
especially the Proposal’ offered in the concluding portion of its ruling

Since questions regarding doctrinal resolutions and statements have been
distressing the Synod at least since 1953 and have contributed to the unrest
within the synodica! fellowship. the Commisston on Constitutional Matters
will recommend to the 1975 convention the appointment of a spectal com-
mittee to dratt a proposed addition to the Handbook in arder to set forth
clearly

a The status of doctrinal statements as distinguished from the Scrip-
tures and the Lutheran Confessions
The procedures for adoption of such statements

c The procedures for proper expression of dissent and possible
revision. (The Lutheran Witness. June 16 1974. p. 24)

It should be noted furthermore that many of the communications which

express objections to the adoption of A Statement’ on theological grounds
fail to indicate the extent and nature of the theological dissent. In several
cases explanations for this failure are offered. Some correspondents plead
that the demancs of the parish ministry did not permit them to undertake the
time-consuming task of preparing a detailed theological critique: some indi-
Cate that they would rather share their theological disagreements with
‘A Statement” with those who have the immediate supervision of their
doctrine. some flatly declare that they do not recognize the authority of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations to require a detailed state-
ment of their reasons for dissent: still others even voice the suspicion that
the CTCR request tor a clarification of their theological objections to

A Statement’ 1s intended to entrap them

Atter eliminating those communications which oppose the adoption
of “A Statement” on constitutional grounds and those communications
which fail to specify the nature of their theological objections to A State-
ment.” there remain about 50 communications which have been very helpful
in the preparation of this theological evaluation of "A Statement

On behalf of the Synod. which throughout its entire history has paid
Serious attention to matters of doctrine. the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations expresses sincere appreciation to all who. out of their own
genuine concern for sound doctrine. carefully studied “A Statement’ and
candidly shared both their positive and negative reactions. On the basis of

REPORT ON DISSENT

FROM A STATEMENT OF
SCRIPTURAL AND CONFESSIONAL
PRINCIPLES AND

Other Doctrinal Resolutions of The
Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod

|. Survey of Materials Received

At the time when this report is being prepared, about 575 communi-
cations expressing objections to the adoption of A Statement” by the
New Orleans convention of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod (Resolu-
tion 3-01, Convention Proceedings, 1973, pp. 127-128) have been received
by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Most of these
expressions of dissent came trom pastors; some came from parochial school
teachers; several came from professors at synodical schools: a few came
from pastoral conferances. congregations, church councils, and individual
lay people

The receipt of each of these communications was acknowledged with
the promise that, following their careful and serious consideration, the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations would make a report to the
Synod

It should aiso be noted that in response to a request of the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations staff, 38 Districts submitted information
about the action of their District conventions relative to the adoptidn of

A Statement’ by the New Orleans convention of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod. Fifteen Districts report that no specific action was taken by
their conventions directly pertaining to “A Statement.” Nine Districts
adopted resolutions supportive of A Statement.’ Four Districts will request
the Anaheim convention of the Synod to reconsider Resolution 3-01 of the
New Orleans convention, and ten Districts will urge that Resolution 3-01 be
rescinded. In no case. however, did Districts asking the Synod to reconsider
or rescind Resolution 3-01 do so on the basis of any specific doctrinal
objections to ''A Statement.”

At the outset it should be noted that most of the communications
addressed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations oppose the
adoption of “A Statement’ on constitutional grounds. The two major con-
stitutional objections are the following

1. The adoption of “A Statement" in effect amends Article It of the

these responses this report will identify the major areas of disagreement
with and/or misunderstanding of the theological formulations of A State-
ment.

Ul. General Criticisms

Some criticisms of “A Statement” of a more general nature should be
noted first

A. OMISSIONS AND INADEQUACIES

‘A Statement’ is faulted for omitting some topics and for failing to
treat others adequately. For instance. topics not treated at all are the first
use of the law. the sacraments. and liturgical forms. A topic not explicitly
tfeated is the work of the Holy Spirit. Had “A Statement’ been intended to
offer an exhaustive presentation of the entire body of Christian doctrine and
an exhaustive discussion of Christian ethics such a criticism would be under-
standable. The expressly declared purpose of “A Statement.” however, was
to assist in identifying areas which may need further attention in terms of the
Synod’'s doctrinal position. In other words. ''A Statement’ focused on issues
in controversy and. therefore. quite naturally omitted topics which do not
require special attention at the present time. One may as wel! fauit the
Apostles’ Creed for not including in the Third Article a lengthy exposition
of the Holy Spirit's work in the justification and sanctification of the sinner
or criticize Melanchthon for not treating every topic of Christian doctrine
in his Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.”

8. IMBALANCE

‘A Statement’ is criticized for its ‘imbalance.’ Much more space is
given to the section that deals with Holy Scripture than to the section which
confesses Christ as Savior and Lord. While it is inconceivable that even the
most limited discussion of Lutheran theology should omit a confession of
Christ's saviorhood and lordship. it is nevertheless in the very nature of the
case that in a document addressed principally to issues in controversy those
topics concerning which there is disagreement should receive more detailed
treatment than others. Most of the disagreements in the Synod center in
questions pertaining to the inspiration. inerrancy, and authority of the
Scriptures. If “A Statement” is to serve the purpose of identitying areas of
the Synod’s theological position which need further clarification. it is simply
inevitable that disputed points receive the most attention.

WI. Specitic Criticism

Besides these criticisms pertaining to the whole scope and format
of “A Statement.” other more specific strictures have been made against
each of the six parts of “A Statement.” In the interest of fairness it ought to