LCMS Convention Day Four

2016-LCMS-Convention-Logo-1024x684-300x200The Fourth Day of the Convention has finished up.  The big thing today was the elections.  The United List fared very well.  Delegates weighing in the strengths of the candidates and also the trustworthiness of the list’s recommendations voted astoundingly to put 80 out of 90 United List recommended candidates into office.  The United List proved to know the right candidates to place in the right boards to serve our Synod.  There were a couple attempts to decry these “lists”, but frankly to accuse the delegation of being so easily susceptible to a list is to discredit the good delegates here this week.  They chose the people they wanted to elect.  There was no coercion.  There was no self-promotion by the United List candidates. Just good confessionally minded folks elected to office by delegates to the convention.  The end result – the convention which has helped restore Augsburg 14 to the LCMS (implementation will be key) also elected most of the candidates that the United List recommended.

As far as resolutions today, the convention opted to table the previously contentious 12-01A and instead approved 12-14, a “compromise” solution which gives the Council of Presidents consultation prior to the Board of Directors writing the required bylaws.  Other resolutions were passed and you can check them out in the official synod stuff.  Tomorrow will see a lot of resolutions that have not even been presented yet, and hopefully the delegates will use both sound reasoning and our orthodox faith to pass the good ones and decline the bad resolutions or amendments and such.

I will not be reporting on tomorrow, but perhaps one of the other writers who is in attendance will take up the task.  Remember delegates now serve their respective circuits for the next three years.

It has been encouraging to see some solid ground gained in regards to faithful practice in the LCMS and also to see good folks elected to serve in offices for the next 3-6 years.

 

 

About Pastor Joshua Scheer

Pastor Joshua Scheer is the Senior Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He is also the Editor-in-chief of Brothers of John the Steadfast. He oversees all of the work done by Steadfast Lutherans. He is a regular host of Concord Matters on KFUO. Pastor Scheer and his lovely wife Holly (who writes and manages the Katie Luther Sisters) have four children and enjoy living in Wyoming.

Comments

LCMS Convention Day Four — 88 Comments

  1. Dear BJS,
    I took copious notes and I got some work to do as a Circuit Visitor as well now. Probably going to schedule a debrief Winkel for my group.
    You want my take, email me.
    Yes, I do wish we had more time to debate issues, perhaps an evening for four hours, setup the mics, a beer as well; and wrestle. But….
    In the end, all did well and we have plenty of work to do now.
    Now I gotta get myself into the Koinania Project. Time permitting. I am not a LLD, but a full pastor and a worker/priest.

  2. While the LLD program is being phased out, and current LLDs supposedly pursuing some route to ordination, it was noted on p. 89 of 2016 Today’s Business (First Issue, ver. 3) that men may still be trained and certified to be placed into the pastoral office in the following programs at the two LCMS seminaries:

    • MDiv program (both),
    • Alternate Route (both),
    • Center for Hispanic Studies (STL),
    • Ethnic Immigrant Institute of Theology (STL),
    • Deaf Institute of Theology (STL),
    • Cross-Cultural Ministry Center (STL), and
    • Specific Ministry Pastor Program (both)

    The 2016 Convention has also just passed Resolution 6-01, To Create a Pastoral Formation Committee, which changed Bylaw 3.10, part D from “D. Seminary Boards of Regents” to “D. Pastoral Formation Committee,” and added more bylaws sections on what this committee is to do, including:

    • recommend any new routes leading to ordination for approval by resolution of the Synod. Such a recommendation shall follow consultation with the two seminary boards of regents in their annual joint meeting.

    • review, assess, coordinate, support and make suggestions for improvement of all existing non-colloquy routes leading to ordination in the Synod, including seminary and pre-seminary education programs.

    What this means to any consideration of combining the two seminaries in one location or closing one of the seminaries (now under one centralized committee), is left as an exercise for the reader.

  3. @Carl Vehse #50

    Dear BJS Bloggers,

    Now here (comment #50) “Carl Vehse” is “right on the mark”! Good for him and kudos too!!! I apologize to Carl for my somewhat harsh remarks in comment #37. But I still consider his treatment of the Resolution 12-07A to be in error, at least in part.

    Carl rightly asks the unsolved question: What is the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod against which a member of the Synod may not publicly dissent?

    This is a difficult and unsolved question, but not an unsolvable one. It is what I was referring to in my comment #37 about unclear language in Resolution 12-07A.

    When CHI was working on the “Doctrinal Resolutions” project that I mentioned in comment #37, the first question that arose was “What is a doctrinal resolution?” It turns out that the synod has changed its mind on that question a number of times in its history. The answer was thus to include in our project everything and anything that could be considered in any sense a doctrinal resolution.

    It is pretty clear from our history that four doctrinal resolutions have served as settlement as the “position of the synod” after a long and frustrating battle. They deserve the title “doctrinal statements.”

    Here they are: Church and Ministry Theses of 1851 settled the synod’s position in the battle between the Buffalo and Missouri Synods. Election Theses of 1881 settled the synod’s position in the battle between the LCMS/WELS on one side, and the Ohio Synod/Norwegian Synod on the other. Brief Statement of 1932 settled the synod’s position in the ecumenical discussions between Missouri and the old ALC. Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles of 1973 settled the synod’s internal battle between liberals and conservatives. In my opinion, these four statements express the “established position of the LCMS”, in addition to Article II of its Constitution.

    It is an odd thing that the bylaws define as a “doctrinal statement” no existing document, since none of the above four statements were adopted according to its procedures.

    So I believe that the general outlines of what constitutes the “established doctrinal position” of the LCMS is pretty clear. But its exact boundaries are indistinct, i.e., the matter of which documents define it is indistinct. Defining the exact boundaries is a problem for a Convention Task Force, the CTCR, or the joint seminary faculties to solve.

    It is like the property boundaries of most home residences in the Midwest in neighborhoods without fences. I am not going to be picky if you mow on my side of the property line, but if you are snooping around in my garage, I will ask you to leave.

    I think that the originators of Resolution 12-07A, the floor committee, and the convention in general also have in mind the problem of pastors attacking each other over doctrinal disagreements in print and online. This leads to unnecessary disunity in the church. Unity of the true faith is Objective One of the LCMS (see Article III of our Constitution), so I am always in favor of resolutions that promote such unity.

    One way of reducing such disunity is to have our pastors consult privately with their brother pastors when they feel that something is amiss in a doctrinal position of the synod or when something is said or done by a synodical officer, professor, etc. Our circuit pastor’s meetings are designed to deal with such matters in a fruitful and fraternal way. If a particular circuit is not amenable to certain questions, there are pastors in every circuit who have the wisdom of year’s experience and study to help settle most concerns of their brother pastors.

    I like the advice about how a Christian should conduct himself in controversy given by Pastor Theodore Brohm of Holy Cross, Saint Louis. This was specifically with regard to how Lutherans should respond to the American Civil War, but it has broader application. This was published in May 14, 1861 Der Lutheraner and is found in translation in the CHI Quarterly 84 #2 (Summer 2011): 119-121. I think that Brohm’s counseled approach is thoroughly Lutheran and Christian, and also applies to theological controversies.

    I hope you all have a great summer! 🙂

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  4. @Martin R. Noland #53

    Dr. Noland,

    You make our point. Regarding “doctrinal positions” or “doctrinal resolutions,” much ambiguity exists. Resolution 12-07A is a “Swiss cheese” resolution. Pick your loop-hole…… The Keishnick/Hennings/liberal/non-confessional crowd will use this resolution to exploit heterodoxy. It’s a bad resolution. Admit it. Recognition is the first step to recovery.

  5. @Martin R. Noland #53

    Never mind. The way I read the resolution, since I’m not a peer you are required to uphold and defend resolution 12-07A when addressing me since we have no solid foundation or definition for what constitutes a resolution that can be discussed. Yikes. See where we are…………?

  6. @Randy #55

    Interesting quandary, isn’t it? The laity will now never know whether their pastors are giving them their honest appraisal of synodical resolutions in light of Scripture and the Confessions, or if they are cowering in fear to the threat of being expunged or tried by the Party power brokers. I suppose we’ll be able to judge this tree by its fruits… But I sure don’t think this thorn bush is going to produce figs.

  7. @Martin R. Noland #53

    Dr. Noland,
    Is it too late to include the four (4) LCMS doctrinal resolutions you mentioned and Article II of the Constitution as an amendment to Resolution 12-07A? It seems reasonable that if the consequences of discussing doctrinal resolutions out of school can bring a church worker up on charges of bylaw violation then said doctrinal resolutions should be specified with no ambiguity. Clarity is imperative when the stakes for church workers have been raised, not to mention the chilling effect this resolution will have on speech and other forms of dissent and self-expression. How will a church worker know whether he/she is in violation of the Synod’s bylaws by publicly criticizing doctrinal resolutions as opposed to other practices of Synod if these doctrinal resolutions aren’t widely published? It seems that these so-called doctrinal resolutions are rather obscure to the average church worker, the first harkening back to the mid-nineteenth century. Would such clarification avert confusion?

  8. @Brad #56, @Randy #55

    Oh, there are even more problems with Resolution 12-07A, and the restrictions in revised Bylaw 1.8, because of the ambiguity of defining the doctrinal position of the Synod. Who those restrictions apply to is stated in 1.8.1 and 1.8.3: members of the Synod.

    And recalling Article V in the Constitution, who are members of the Synod? (Now let’s always see the same hands. 😉 ) And then, who are the “peers” of synodical member congregations?

    So, for example (and you can replace it with your own), in a congregational meeting (formerly known as a “voters’ assembly”) a group of voters have prepared a proposed overture to be submitted to a District or Synod convention explaining the reasons and purpose to correct the Synod’s false doctrinal practice of allowing early (preconfirmation=open) communion. A motion is made and approved that the proposed overture be posted on the congregation’s website (which includes a blog) for review and comment by congregational voters before a motion to submit the final version of the overture to the District or Synod is made at the next meeting.

    How does Bylaw 1.8 apply here? Especially in light of Article VII.

    • Can the pastor make any positive comment about the overture during this process?
    • Can the proposed overture be put on the congregation’s website and discussed on its blog (comments are restricted to voters, but the website can be publicly viewed)?
    • Can a point of order objection (according to Robert’s Rules) be raised to whether the motion on submitting the proposed overture to District or Synod can even be made and seconded, much less passed?
    • Can the pastor or other Synodical members viewing the congregation’s website warn the congregation it is violating Bylaw 1.8 and placing its synodical membership in jeopardy?
    • Can the continued efforts by the congregational group to submit the overture despite the warnings to be regarded as a sin?
    • Can the pastor withhold the Lord’s Supper from those communicant members who discuss or vote for submitting the overture until they cease and repent?
    • If the overture is approved and submitted to a District Convention, would the DP be required as part of his responsibilities to initiate ecclesiastical supervision on the congregation for violating Bylaw 1.8, which could lead to loss of membership?

  9. @Carl Vehse #58

    It seems obvious to me that the solution to all these ambiguities in the synod’s ever growing body of canon law, is to double the efforts to increase the ranks of synodical canon lawyers, funded of course by money extorted– e’hem– donated by the congregations’ members through their districts. A quick resolution (or re-interpretation of a resolution, a-la the ever morphing interpretations HHS makes of the ACA) from synod bureaucrats should help ensure that the money flows as it should, and any dissent or resistance is clobbered quickly.

    What a brave new world!

  10. @Brad #56

    Interesting quandary, isn’t it? The laity will now never know whether their pastors are giving them their honest appraisal of synodical resolutions in light of Scripture and the Confessions, or if they are cowering in fear to the threat of being expunged or tried by the Party power brokers. I suppose we’ll be able to judge this tree by its fruits… But I sure don’t think this thorn bush is going to produce figs.

    What we have here is “mo’ gun control”.
    IOW, another method for turning confessional Pastors into CRM/CA’s.

    Because what liberal preacher ever worries about synodical resolutions…right or wrong? Or (except Becker, and that took 20 years) lost anything by his defiance?
    [So the outlaws will still have guns.]

    And then we will “need” mo’ SMP’s…. 🙁

  11. @Carl Vehse #58

    Interesting, and scary, optic on this ludicrous resolution. Yet, no doubt a number of LCMS politicians will continue to back 12-07A in the form of “intent.” The bureaucrats will dismiss dissent (ha – as if dissent will now be tolerated) regarding this resolution by stating that the “intent” was to address cases like the Becker fiasco. News flash – hanging ones hat on “intent” is tantamount to building ones house on the sand. 12-07A is a foolish, and dare I say unscriptural/pope-like proposition, that will likely be used by the weaker “leaders” at LCMS, Inc to hide behind. Additionally, “intent” of a resolution is only as strong as the memory of those who authored it………..

    @Brad #59

    Great point. In fact, since the LCMS has firmly planted her flag, and hammered it deep, into the realm of bylaws, perhaps the category of Ecclesiastical Lawyer needs to be officially added to the LCMS vernacular at the congregational level. Without an Ecclesiastical Lawyer to arbitrate discussions between pastors and congregations, or between congregations and the district, a pastor could quickly find himself in hot water.

  12. Granted, that there is ambiguity about the definition of “doctrinal resolution”. And in fact 12-07A is a bad resolution.

    How could it ever be argued that resolution 12-07A is a doctrinal resolution? There is no teaching in it. Doctrine means teaching?

    @ Carl 58
    How does administering the sacrament to someone prior to the Rite of Confirmation equal open communion? Please defend with Scripture and the Confessions that the Rite of Confirmation is a requirement to be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

  13. It’s too bad about all the confusion and uncertainty of Resolution 12-07A, which was passed by apparently confused and uncertain delegates.

    Maybe the convention delegates should have dealt with that resolution like they dealt with Resolution 12-01.

    Resolution 12-01, To Restore Right of Accuser to Appeal When a District President Declines or Fails to Act, was replaced on July 10 with Resolution 12-01A (TB2-2), tabled until Tuesday, replaced with Resolution 12-01B, (TB4), postponed indefinitely, but then apparently renamed Resolution 12-14, although it still appears as “Resolution 12-01B” (TB5, p. 467), and elsewhere as 12-14B.

    In this whatever-the-heck-(No offense meant, Dr. Joel)-number-it-is resolution, the delegates (except for 67 NOs) voted to direct the Synod Board of Directors, under Bylaw 7.1.2, to amend those bylaws declared unconstitutional by CCM Opinion 16-2791 (June 20,2016, CCM Minutes, pp. 139-145), by having the Secretary of the Synod prepare draft amendments, which will incorporate a process designed by mutual agreement between the SP and the COP President (Ken Hennings) and allowing input from the COP, and which may be reviewed by the CCM and the Commission on Papal Canon… I mean, Handbook. This is all to be done within six months unless the SP and COPP agree to an extension, and the final amendments then submitted to the Synodical BOD and become effective following a required two-thirds majority approval.

    See how easy Resolution Whatever-The-Heck-Number-It-Is was handled!

  14. @Andrew Wachter #62

    My previous discussions on early (open) communion are on the BJS blogs:

    October 11, 2012, Lutheranism in a Nutshell:
    #76 from Carl Vehse on October 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm
    #133 from Carl Vehse on October 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm
    #170 from Carl Vehse on October 14, 2012 at 11:35 am
    #173 from Carl Vehse on October 14, 2012 at 6:35 pm
    #176 from Carl Vehse on October 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm
    #197 from Carl Vehse on October 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm
    #206 from Carl Vehse on October 16, 2012 at 9:05 am
    #210 from Carl Vehse on October 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm
    #211 from Carl Vehse on October 16, 2012 at 2:21 pm
    #213 from Carl Vehse on October 17, 2012 at 9:49 am

    June 26, 2013, Early Communion:
    #4 from Carl Vehse on June 26, 2013 at 9:22 am
    #26 from Carl Vehse on June 26, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    #32 from Carl Vehse on June 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    #37 from Carl Vehse on June 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    #43 from Carl Vehse on June 26, 2013 at 7:07 pm
    #47 from Carl Vehse on June 27, 2013 at 7:33 am
    #54 from Carl Vehse on June 27, 2013 at 10:20 am
    #65 from Carl Vehse on June 27, 2013 at 3:25 pm
    #72 from Carl Vehse on June 27, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    #90 from Carl Vehse on July 3, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    #100 from Carl Vehse on September 22, 2013 at 6:56 am

  15. @Andrew Wachter #62

    My previous discussions on early (open) communion are also on the BJS blogs:

    January 3, 2016, To Address the Practice of Infant Communion:
    #2 from Carl Vehse on January 3, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    #12 from Carl Vehse on January 5, 2016 at 8:56 am
    #15 from Carl Vehse on January 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    #17 from Carl Vehse on January 5, 2016 at 2:13 pm
    #21 from Carl Vehse on January 5, 2016 at 11:22 pm
    #25 from Carl Vehse on January 6, 2016 at 7:56 am
    #27 from Carl Vehse on January 6, 2016 at 10:07 am
    #34 from Carl Vehse on January 6, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    #49 from Carl Vehse on January 9, 2016 at 1:49 pm
    #50 from Carl Vehse on January 12, 2016 at 12:29 pm
    #51 from Carl Vehse on January 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm
    #52 from Carl Vehse on January 25, 2016 at 11:04 am

    January 23, 2016, Convention 2016: It’s Time … for 2016 Convention Deadlines:
    #4 from Carl Vehse on April 16, 2016 at 1:45 pm

  16. The fact that you have done a lot of arguing about this should give you pause. Should you make a blanket statement calling early communion a false doctrine if so many other Confessional Lutherans disagree?

    Could the reason that there is not a binding doctrinal statement on this topic be that it is a matter of Christian Freedom to be determined by the congregations?

    If you were Synodical President and could get a resolution passed requiring all members of LCMS churches to have to complete the Rite of Confirmation in order to receive communion, how would you go about enforcing that?

    If this became the doctrinal position of the Synod, Would you allow people to dissent from this position?

  17. @Andrew Wachter #66

    Your comments imply that you have not read the content, including the various references and links, of my posts.

    BTW, do you have an answer yet for why you considered in your question in Post#35, that the SP and DP may have been lying to the questioner?

  18. I did not say they were lying. I was asking if you thought they were lying. they said that under resolution 12-07A writing on a blog against LLD would not have been a violation. you said that it would in your first comment.

    When you said that in your first comment “For example, if the changes in that Bylaw had been made at the previous convention, the articles and discussions over the past year by pastors on BJS about Licensed Lay Deacons and AC.XIV would have been forbidden and could have subjected the pastors to ecclesiastical discipline”, are you accusing the presidents of being wrong or lying?

  19. @Carl Vehse #67

    Your comments imply that you have not read the content [early communion], including the various references and links, of my posts.

    I’m sure I’ve read your posts on the subject, here and elsewhere, as they were posted (but only a few of the archived ones this afternoon).

    [Since the present generation is so much brighter than mine, and]
    since they need instruction in the faith early because they are getting Mary Calderone’s views on “gender fluidity”, masturbation and other subjects not discussed in my public school kindergarten:

    how about we go back to ‘teaching by memorizing’ Luther’s catechism as soon as students are able to read (or earlier)? [Luther’s, not Schwan’s]

    And what if a child were examined for confirmation at perhaps 8 years old, [when even the psychologists agree that children have developed the ability to know right and wrong];

    could that child then be confirmed and partake of communion?

    [The Small Catechism from the BOC, and an understanding of sin are the things we ask of confirmands. I doubt 14 understands any better than 8, or we wouldn’t have so many making solemn vows to be faithful and then disappearing from church!]

    Sunday school should put the emphasis on school and serious education should occur there through high school, at very least the added portions of the catechism, the Augsburg Confession our 8th grade graduate grandparents were familiar with, the liturgy (should be absorbed in church attendance) and a basic set of hymns.

    Look around you! Read what the politicians are saying. You may see the day when all the Christianity you/your children have must be carried between your ears.

    [Hilary has said (again) that if your religion conflicts with the antics on the “supreme court”, your religion will have to change!]

    I really believe that if we dawdle about with “crafts” in SS till students are 13-14 we will have lost them (most of the boys by third grade).
    And pick hymns for the older students! Young ones want to emulate the older, but you can’t go the other way and sing “This little light of mine” very long and keep the older students in the room.

  20. @Andrew Wachter #68: “I did not say they were lying.”

    Red herring. I did not claim you said they were lying. I asked why you considered in your question that the SP and DP may have been lying to the questioner. If you had not considered it a possibility, then either your question would seem similar to facetiously asking “Is it your contention that the two of them are flying?”, or else that your question was a loaded one.

    Nor did I claim or suggest the two presidents were lying. As I commented previously, based on the video, and the questioner’s incomplete question, the responding “No,” the pastor’s response—“I’m having a difficult time understanding what this means then”—and DP Wille’s statement—“That’s a good question”—leaves it unclear as to what was really being stated or explained.

  21. @helen #69: “And what if a child were examined for confirmation at perhaps 8 years old, [when even the psychologists agree that children have developed the ability to know right and wrong]; could that child then be confirmed and partake of communion?”

    Helen, as I have noted several times in the links I referenced above, the Lutheran confessional doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper does not set a specific age requirement for communicants. And I have also agreed that there likely are children in Missouri Synod churches who could received catechesis and be confirmed* at an earlier age than the typical 13-or-14-year-old confirmand.

    Somewhere I have also noted that a case may be made for encouraging Missouri Synod churches to have a uniform practice across the Synod for the age at which children’s catechesis and confirmation are typically done.

    *Confirmed refers to the rite of confirmation in which the person makes a public and unconditional subscription to the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, which is also included in a Missouri Synod congregation’s constitution as a requirement for being a communicant member.

  22. “rite of confirmation in which person makes a public and unconditional subscription to the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580”

    This is not accurate. The question a person is asked in the Rite of Confirmation is “Do you confess the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn from the scriptures, as you have learned to know it from the Small Catechism, to be faithful and true.”

    It would be unfair to ask a person, in most cases a child, to unconditionally subscribe to the Book of Concord 1580. The vast majority of the laity have not read the Book of Concord, It would be impossible for them to honestly make that confession. We confess to the best our ability based on what we have been taught.

  23. @Andrew Wachter #72

    “It would be unfair to ask a person, in most cases a child, to unconditionally subscribe to the Book of Concord 1580. The vast majority of the laity have not read the Book of Concord, It would be impossible for them to honestly make that confession. We confess to the best our ability based on what we have been taught.”

    It’s never too late.

  24. @Andrew Wachter #72

    It would be unfair to ask a person, in most cases a child, to unconditionally subscribe to the Book of Concord 1580.

    Sadly, numerous pastors who have read the BoC and have been thoroughly educated in the Symbols fail to subscribe to the 1580 BoC. As a result, those same pastors also fail to properly catechize their congregations.

  25. @Carl Vehse #71

    Helen, as I have noted several times in the links I referenced above, the Lutheran confessional doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper does not set a specific age requirement for communicants. And I have also agreed that there likely are children in Missouri Synod churches who could received catechesis and be confirmed* at an earlier age than the typical 13-or-14-year-old confirmand.

    Sorry! I have read that, but not today.
    I do think LCMS should move in the direction of earlier and more thorough instruction and confirmation. It would be better if confirmation was not graduation, but the entrance to further training. [This will take some teaching of parents!]

    Those who work against religion are starting with the youngest, and our children need all the help they can get. Obviously primary students will get nowhere challenging their teachers, but they need to know they can talk to their parents and get truth at home.

    I remember one son asking what to do when he was expected to give answers he did not believe. I told him to write, “According to the text (or the teacher) the answer is this….” He preserved his grade without conceding the “truth” of the answer.

  26. @ Carl Vehse

    Based on this quote, are you in favor or apposed to a pastor being allowed to publicly speak against a doctrinal resolution of the Synod? Or are you just apposed to them being forbidden to speak against the ones you don’t like?

    http://concordiatheology.org/2013/01/the-office-of-the-holy-ministry/#comment-6918

    Rick Strickert says:
    January 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Surprisingly, in the discussion, among the affirmations, and even in the Endnotes, there was no mention of the Missouri Synod’s 1851 affirmation and 2001 reaffirmation of C.F.W. Walther’s Die Stimme unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt (The Voice of Our Church Concerning the Question of the Church and the Ministry) as the definitive statement under the Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions of the Synod’s understanding on the subject of Church and Ministry and that all pastors, professors, teachers of the Church and congregations honor and uphold this official position of our Synod on Church and Ministry and teach in accordance with it.

  27. @Andrew Wachter #77

    The January, 2013 quote notes that the 2006 CTQ essay on the Office of Holy Ministry had no mention of the previous affirmations of C.F.W. Walther’s Kirche und Amt. The quote is not pertinent to your loaded (false dilemma) questions.

  28. @Carl Vehse #78

    It is pertinent to the topic. You state in that comment that a resolution passed in 1851 and again in 2001 is a “definitive statement under the Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions… and that all pastors, professors, teachers of the Church and congregations honor and uphold this official position of our Synod on Church and Ministry and teach in accordance with it.”

    If you still think that a doctrinal resolution is binding on pastors and all their teaching should be in accordance with it. You should be all for resolution 12-07A.

  29. So I guess where I’m a little confused is you think that it should be OK to publicly speak against the synods positions on early communion, A&P fellowship, ordination practices, military chaplaincy, and fellowship with external organizations, but some doctrinal positions you cannot question. For example if you were to question elevating Wather’s Church and Ministry to the level of binding doctrine you are going to get resolutions and bylaws thrown in your face.

    on a christiannewsmo.blogspot.com article you wrote:
    ———–
    Carl Vehse July 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM
    Resolved, That the LCMS in convention reaffirm the decision of the 1852 convention in recognizing C. F. W. Walther’s book, The Voice of Our Church on the Question of Church and Ministry, as the official position of the LCMS; and be it further
    Resolved, That all pastors, professors, teachers of the church, and congregations honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod as regards the official position of our Synod on church and ministry and teach in accordance with them.

    Well, Rev. ——–, I think your current and previous comments, while tapdancing around actually condemning the book, have pretty much displayed your disgust with the book and these Resolveds, along with a few bylaw statements about dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements, and 160 years of Missouri Synod history.
    —————

  30. @Andrew Wachter #81

    ..I’m a little confused…

    I probably haven’t followed this closely enough, but Andrew, if you are confused about ‘Carl Vehse’ voicing opinions, you should know he’s a “civilian” in fact and in ‘nom de plume’ and he can argue anywhere about anything with no more reprisal than the occasional rude remark. 🙂

    {And a lot of 5th generation LCMS descendants do treat Walther like Gospel, as it looks to me.}

  31. @Andrew Wachter #81

    Your posts seems to have drifted toward whatever webpages you can find from a Google search for “Carl Vehse” and “dissent.” But what you leave out is the context of your partial excerpts from such sites, as you did with the excerpt from the Concordia Theology webpage.

    As for the Christian News blog webpage, in objecting to a claim about him in Rev. Cascione’s article, Rev. ______ demanded a retraction and asserted, “At no time did I ‘condemn Walther’s book’ or imply that adopting his book would be ‘contrary to the Gospel’.”

    In two subsequent posts, one of which contains your partial excerpt, I quoted several derogatory statements Rev. ______ had made on a Facebook page about Walther’s book and its theology, which I also noted the LCMS had affirmed as its official doctrinal position on church and ministry. I also noted Rev. ______’s apparent disgust with the Resolveds, the dissent bylaws, and the 160-year LCMS history of the doctrinal position he had denounced (with no substantiation or support, other than his “Hehehehehhe”).

    The purpose of my posts on the 2013 Christian News blog was to show contradictions to Rev. ______’s assertion, and not to deal with whether a member may publicly present confessional objections to a LCMS doctrinal position.

  32. Yes I did search your previous online history to better understand where you are coming from. Looks like you do that to people quite often. let me ask the question again in a different way.

    Hypothetical One.
    A member of synod has theological reasons to doubt the practice of early communion. and thinks that the Synods practice of allowing it is an error. He discusses this on his blog. My understanding is that you would be perfectly OK with this. You would support his dissent and would be angry if Synod tried to silence his free speech.

    Hypothetical Two.
    A member of synod has theological reasons to doubt the elevation of Wather’s Church and Ministry to binding doctrinal status. My understanding is that you are not OK with this. Would you support the Synod limiting his speech in this matter?

    Why are some doctrinal stances over and above the Scripture and the Confessions questionable and some are not?

  33. @Andrew Wachter #84

    Why are you claiming that some doctrinal stances over and above the Scripture and the Confessions are questionable and some are not, just as earlier you claimed that I think “some doctrinal positions you cannot question,” or suggested I might only oppose speaking against the doctrinal positions I don’t like? Such claims are erroneous or irrelevant to the discussions about Resolution 12-07A.

    The objections to Resolution 12-07A on this BJS thread have been directed to the Resolution’s attempt to deal with public doctrinal dissent on the basis of a Bylaw restricting public doctrinal dissent. The appropiate course would be using Article II, Article VI, and Article XIII as the basis for deciding whether any such public dissent (and the substantiation for it) violates those requirements for synodical membership.

  34. I’m not really claiming anything, I’m trying to understand your claims. Before this resolution was passed was it perfectly fine to publicly dissenting from a doctrinal position? I’m not sure that is the case. Because, as you pointed out in discussing the resolution from 2001, doctrinal resolutions have wording in them that is binding

    “Resolved, That all pastors, professors, teachers of the church, and congregations honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod as regards the official position of our Synod on church and ministry and teach in accordance with them”

    This seems to be in line with Dr Noland’s explanation, “When the synod adopts doctrinal resolutions or statements, it usually includes a statement about how such doctrines are to be received”

    I was under the impression that you were arguing in favor of a member’s public dissent and public teaching contrary to one of these resolutions on the grounds of dissent.

    At the convention when President Wille is answering the “Good Question” he says “The Doctrinal Position of the Synod is defined in, Oh what Bylaw is it? It’s the Confessional Standers” President Harrison then interjects “Article II and article IV, Article IV especially.”

    From this is exchange we can conclude that Article II and Article IV are in fact used to decide weather a member’s criticisms are dissent. The reworded bylaw is simply saying after a members views are determined to be dissent, as in the case of Becker, they cannot be publicly discussed on a blog under the banner of discussing it with “fellowship of peers”. Before Bylaws on dissent are applicable, it must first be determined weather or not a members views are in fact dissent by using Article II and IV (per president Harrison).

    (I realize that I am backing away from previous argument about “fellowship of peers”, I appear to be wrong on that. I’m not sure that laypeople are automatically disqualified, It would depend on the nature of the subject matter being dissented from.)

  35. my last post is incredibly hard to read but it doesn’t look like I can edit It.

    I’m not really claiming anything, I’m trying to understand your claims. Before this resolution was passed was it perfectly fine to publicly dissent from a doctrinal position? I’m not sure that is the case. As you pointed out in discussing the resolution from 2001, doctrinal resolutions have wording in them that is binding.

    “Resolved, That all pastors, professors, teachers of the church, and congregations honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod as regards the official position of our Synod on church and ministry and teach in accordance with them”

    This seems to be in line with Dr Noland’s explanation, “When the synod adopts doctrinal resolutions or statements, it usually includes a statement about how such doctrines are to be received”

    I was under the impression that you were arguing in favor of a member’s freedom of speech to publicly criticize and publicly teaching contrary to one of these resolutions on the grounds of dissent.

    At the convention when President Wille is answering the “Good Question” he says “The Doctrinal Position of the Synod is defined in, Oh what Bylaw is it? It’s the Confessional Standards” President Harrison then interjects “Article II and article IV, Article IV especially.”

    From this exchange we can conclude that Article II and Article IV are in fact used to decide whether or not a member’s criticisms are dissent. The reworded bylaw is simply saying after a members views are determined to be dissent, as in the case of Becker, they cannot be publicly discussed on a blog under the banner of discussing it with “fellowship of peers”. Before Bylaws on dissent are applicable, it must first be determined whether or not a members views are in fact dissent by using Article II and IV (per president Harrison).

    (I realize that I am backing away from previous argument about “fellowship of peers”, I appear to be wrong on that. I’m not sure that laypeople are automatically disqualified, It would depend on the nature of the subject matter being dissented from.)

  36. @Andrew Wachter #87“I’m not really claiming anything.”

    On this thread you have.

    “My understanding is that you are not OK with this.”

    “… you think that it should be OK to publicly speak against the synods positions on early communion, A&P fellowship, ordination practices, military chaplaincy, and fellowship with external organizations, but some doctrinal positions you cannot question.”

    [rite of confirmation in which person makes a public and unconditional subscription to the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580] “This is not accurate.”

    “It would be unfair to ask a person, in most cases a child, to unconditionally subscribe to the Book of Concord 1580.”

    As noted previously, the various definitions of “the doctrinal position of the Synod” in the Bylaw (and in the Convention video) are inconsistent. BTW, Pres. Harrison referred to Article VI, not Article IV.

    I’ve also posted some comments about this and other changes in Bylaw 1.8 on the “LCMS Resolution 12-07A: Is This Dissent?” thread.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.