Monday, July 31, 2006

SID recognizes the Synod can make mistakes

Southern Illinois is calling for the rejection of the CTCR's recent study on "In Statu Confessionis". Do I hear in this a response to those, including our Synodical President, who say members of Synod cannot publically disagree with the Synod?

From the overture:
"
Article VII of the LCMS Constitution is careful to not assume that the Synod will be error free. “Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned;"..."

Also, this editor hears within the historic context of the resolution evidence for a double standard. In the 70's as the Synod addressed the issue of the authority of Scripture, many liberal pastors and congregations were opposed to the conservative approach that our Synod took. Now today, we have a more moderate to liberal administration. Ask yourselves which has the more pastoral heart to those in disagreement? Who has more trust in the truth winning the day vs. having to bring force to bear?

From the overture:

the CTCR in the April 15, 2005 document, “In Statu Confessionis: A Response
to Questions from the Praesidium of the Synod,” completely contradicts a previous CTCR statement. The CTCR in April 2005 stated, “The suspension or withholding of Communion to fellow members of the Synod is by definition a severing of church fellowship,” while the CTCR in April 1970 stated, “…the declaration that one is in statu confessionis is not tantamount to the breaking of fellowship;”

the CTCR in the April 15, 2005 document, “In Statu Confessionis: A Response to Questions from the Praesidium of the Synod,” completely contradicts a previous CTCR statement. The CTCR in April 2005 expects ecclesiastical discipline, when it says, “…the approach taken in dealing with those who declare themselves in statu confessionis with the Synod and refuse to commune district or synodical officials should be the same approach taken in dealing with those who ignore or oppose the Synod’s position on close(d) Communion and thus choose to practice open Communion in violation of their commitment to Synod. (Note: A District President could and should discipline those who practice open communion.); while the CTCR in April 1970, stated,
“That congregations and individuals who are in a "state of protest" remain entitled to all benefits and privileges of synodical membership;”

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home