Congregations Walking Together in Mission To Amend Article II of the Constitution
RESOLUTION 8-29
TF Report (CW TFR, p. 21); TF Report (CW TFR, p. 1.1); Overture 8-14–16 (CW, pp. 225–227) WHEREAS, The Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod articulates why we exist, what we
believe, and how we govern ourselves; and
WHEREAS, The current Constitution does not clearly state how we are saved, that it is only through faith in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Triune God, through which we receive forgiveness of our sins, eternal life, and salvation (John 3:16–18; 1 John 2:2; Acts 4:2); and
WHEREAS, We desire to be clear in our confession, using language that is consistent with our confessional documents and easily understandable to the world while not changing the substance of our current Constitution; and
WHEREAS, The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance received feedback from the thousands of delegates at the 2009 district conventions, with 83 percent of respondents either agreeing strongly or agreeing with the recommended changes to Article II of the constitution (“Final Report of The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance,” Appendix 1.1); therefore be it
Resolved, That Article II of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod be amended accordingly, as shown (“2007 Handbook Convention Version,” TB, p. 158).
First Resolved. Change Article II of the constitution.
I had an epiphany regarding all the BRTFSSG proposals based on studying this resolution. Article II is the confession of our Synod. When I read Article II as it currently stands I see that we confess the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, and the Symbolic Books, the Book of Concord. The proposed Article II gives our confession as: “The central doctrine of the Scriptures that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, alone is the Savior of the world, and that only “out of grace for Christ’s sake through faith” (Augsburg Confession, IV) in Him is there forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and salvation (John 3:16–18; 1 John 2:2; Acts 4:12).” and makes the Book of Concord the basis for that confession. Sorry, but that is confessional minimalism. The proposed “confession” is a subset of what we believe. The current wording has it correct. The Bible and Book of Concord is what we confess in their entireties.
To me it says that the BRTFSSG does not have the same confession of faith that I do. They have a minimalist approach to what they believe, teach, and confess. If the Synod does not agree on what it confesses then no amount of structural change is going to fix our problems.
Vote: No
{ 2 comments }
Whether intended or not, you are right on about the BRTFSSG recommendation. Really, it has the possibility to completely undermine our Scriptural and Confessional basis by giving a statement of faith as the lens by which we are to interpret Scripture and the Confessions. If it isn’t in line with this mission statement, it isn’t relevant. This is just recycled Gospel reductionism all over again. The guys pushing it in the 60s and 70s at the Seminary got booted and took this hermeneutic to the ELCA… look where that ended. It WILL happen to us if this gets voted on. I have already said to my congregation that if this passes, they and myself will both need to seriously evaluate our relationship with the Missouri Synod. The other side to this is that congregations would need to ratify any changes to the constitution. So even if this passes, it isn’t a done deal. The question is what happens to those that reject it?
Pr. Lorfeld,
I think my pastor would have the same take as you. If it passes, those who rejected it would probably be invited to “stay in the conversation” just like in the ELCA after the human sexuality decision last summer.
Comments on this entry are closed.