Congregations Walking Together in Mission Through Conventions To Amend Article VIII C of the Constitution
RESOLUTION 8-22
TF Report (CW TFR, p. 38); Overtures 8-49 –50 (CW, pp. 237–238)
Rationale
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod exists today in a culture that is drifting farther and farther away from the leading of God’s Word. For that reason it is important for the Synod, from time to time, to express collectively its doctrinal position on specific issues.
The Synod can currently do so through both
-
doctrinal resolutions (Bylaw 1.6.2), which are adopted by a simple majority of delegates at convention; and
-
doctrinal statements (Bylaw 1.6.2), which focus on controverted matters. These statements, while requiring a much more complicated and careful process, are adopted at a convention of the Synod by a simple majority (though requiring 2/3 ratification of congregations casting ballots within 6 months of the convention).
The concern reflected by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance is that when a doctrinal resolution which carries “special significance” (such as those initiating, modifying, or repealing specific positions or practices of the Synod) is adopted by a slim majority, it raises the potential of hindering the efforts for Synod members to walk together in harmony.
That is the impetus behind the recommendation calling for doctrinal resolutions of special significance and doctrinal statements to require a two-thirds majority vote by delegates at Synod conventions.
WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Constitution and Bylaws require that doctrinal resolutions receive only a majority vote in order to be adopted at a Synod convention; and
WHEREAS, The adoption of doctrinal statements requires a more lengthy approval process as set forth in Bylaw 1.6.2, but it also requires only a majority vote by delegates at a Synod convention; and
WHEREAS, Requiring more than a simple majority vote of delegates at Synod conventions on doctrinal resolutions of special significance and all doctrinal statements would better enable the Synod to walk together in harmony with minimal dissent; therefore be it
Resolved, That doctrinal resolutions of special significance and doctrinal statements require a two-thirds vote of delegates at Synod conventions; and be it further
Resolved, That doctrinal statements continue to be used to set forth in greater detail the positions of the Synod, especially in controverted matters; and be it further
Resolved, That the pathway for adoption of doctrinal statements continue to follow the process set forth in Bylaw 1.6.2 (proposed 1.6.4), including involvement of the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations, study by the church, and the congregational ratification process; and be it further
Resolved, That members of Synod convention floor committees be charged with the responsibility for determining which proposed convention resolutions are to be considered doctrinal resolutions of special significance; and be it further
Resolved, That the decisions of the floor committees be guided by determining whether the resolution initiates, modifies, or repeals specific doctrinal positions or practices of the Synod; and be it further
Resolved, That overruling the decisions of convention floor committees in regard to resolutions of special significance require a two-thirds vote of Synod convention delegates; and be it further
Resolved, That delegates to any Synod convention retain the option of, by a simple majority vote, referring any proposed doctrinal resolution of special significance to the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations for evaluation, refinement, development, or recommendation to the next convention of the Synod; and be it finally
Resolved, That Article VIII C be amended accordingly, as shown (“2007Handbook Convention Version,” TB, pp. 162–163).
First Resolved. A new category of doctrinal resolutions.
Second Resolved. But we still have doctrinal statements
Fourth Resolved. Floor committees decide if a doctrinal resolution has special significance.
Let’s throw dirt in muddy waters. The justification for this simply isn’t there. Raising the voting threshold doesn’t make us any more unified in doctrine.
Vote: No
Comments on this entry are closed.