The Complexities of Dissension

Although the CTCR came out with their booklet in December of 2006 on their response to "Expressions of Dissent," I only got around to addressing it with my winkel this month. Aside from the issues themselves (which would be several additional posts alone), my question involves how to interpret what the Synod expects regarding assent to official resolutions of the Synod. In other words, it seems as if it's not enough simply to not agree. You actually have to teach and speak in support of the resolutions even if you don't agree with them. Otherwise, find a new church.

Synod bylaws indicate that synodical resolutions "are to be honored and upheld until such a time as the Synod amends or repeals them." Then they quote the 1971 Resolution 2-21 which says that "the Synod expects every member congregation to respect its resolutions and to consider them of binding force (Bylaw 1.09 b)...." Furthermore, it states that "If a member cannot for conscience' sake accept a doctrinal resolution of the Synod, he has the obligations and opportunity through mutually approved procedure to challenge such a resolution with a view to effecting the changes he deems necessary. Failing in that, he is completely free by reason of his wholly voluntary association with the Synod to obey his conscience and disassociate himself from the the Synod. Meanwhile every member of the Synod is held to abide by, act, and teach in accordance with the Synod's resolutions." (36) And finally, they say that "To 'honor and uphold' means not merely to examine and study them, but to support, act, and teach in accordance with them until they have been shown to be contrary to God's Word..."

Now my specific issue at present has to do with the resolution from the '04 convention that permitted women to hold all offices in the church, save the pastorate. My congregation's constitution does not allow women to be the president or an elder. And I'm sure that when this constitution was put together it was understood that the contents were supported by Holy Scripture. Yet, the synod in convention said that the scriptures now allow this. How can I say no and they yes and not be in dissension? Yet, when I queried the CCM about this dilemma, they seemed to solve it with a "do as you wish." After bringing this up at winkel (pastor's circuit meeting), I'm not sure we came to any satisfying solutions either. Synod has for a long time been a "live and let live" institution. As long as one does not rock the boat and interfere with another church or pastor and simply minds his own business, then all is OK.

So, what "honor and uphold" actually means, if I grasp the point, is just don't voice your opinion so loudly that someone else can hear. As long as I don't know that you disagree, it's as if you agree. But is this honest? Does it even make sense? Or should I even care?

Comments

Rev. Shane R. Cota said…
It is not honest at all, but who cares? As long as your congregation doesn't want to boot you out, you can do whatever you want to in the Missouri Synod. You're right, it truly is "live and let live." So, are the "ecclesiastical supervisors" doing their job? If their job is to get re-elected, then yes.
April 17, 2007 at 4:15:00 PM PDT
Donald V. Engebretson said…
I suspect that it does come down to this. Accepted ambiguity and laissez faire approach to behavior, no matter how egregious or inconsistent it may prove to be with the established doctrine. I suppose I knew this all along, but when I saw the glaring inconsistency in the CTCR response I just couldn't resist asking why.

Thanks!
April 18, 2007 at 6:35:00 AM PDT
Unknown said…
It is best to just follow what the Bible reveals to be the truth on every matter, regradless of the dictates of men. We as Christians have allowed the opinions of men to establish spiritual dictates for far too long.
Jesus Christ is real. We all will actually face Him. So , it is best to do what He says even if it means ignoring "superiors".
Dissension can be done in love without compromise.
bob
April 23, 2007 at 2:35:00 PM PDT
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Firefighter's Cross

Image
[Note: A similar article to this will be shared with my department at their next meeting. During this Lenten season when we are meditating on the significance and meaning of the Passion of our Lord and the Cross at Golgotha, it seemed like one way to offer a witness to the department that captured their interest and yet was not too heavy.] [Editorial Note: In response to a recent comment on this article I have made some changes to the original version of this article especially in regard to references to the so-called St. Florian's Cross. For any confusion the previous unreferenced information may have caused I apologize. I hope that the changes are satisfactory.] THE STORY OF THE MALTESE CROSS In many ways the familiar symbol to the right requires no explanation. It is the universal insignia of firefighting nationwide. Yet the precise origins of this symbol are less clear. The most popular explanation proposes its beginning in the far distant past of medieval Crusaders fi...
Read more

Historical Roots of the Warham Guild Hood

Image
In doing just a little checking on the internet, it's interesting to see how the Warham Guild hood, which I have as part of my STM degree attire, is actually a throwback to the Medieval hood. One article notes "the work of the Warham Guild in its imaginative renderings of medieval hoods" (reference is from here ). Again, here is my hood: The Medieval hood, which was originally a very practical outer garment to cover a person's head and shoulders, protecting both from the elements, bears striking resemblance to this revived form: This hood was also a part of the garb of monks in that era. The Medieval hood, in some cases, also had what is known as a "liripipe," a long tail hanging from the back of a hood. You can see the modern stylized version of this on my own hood. From an article on "Academic hood development" we read that "By 1463 the favourite dress of doctors was the hood with round bell-shaped cape, and the lir...
Read more

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Image
According to a recent documentary, for all the talk about academic freedom in the world of the large American university system, it would seem that it extends only as far as the system defines it - especially with regards to the subject of origins and science. Noted speechwriter Ben Stein stars as host of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dr. Angus Menuge, professor of philosophy at CUW, highlights the film in an article included in the Concordia University - Wisconsin magazine Concordian , including some seemingly revealing details about the expulsion of talented scientists who apparently were ‘expelled‘ from their positions for mentioning the theory of Intelligent Design: “In the current climate, even when academicians have a relevant doctorate and a track-record of peer-reviewed publication, their careers suffer if they argue that the scientific evidence points to an intelligent source involved in the creation of the world. In 1992, Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at ...
Read more