Councils err and the CTCR does not always agree with Scripture and the Confessions. I would not call Pastor Henrickson's proposal draconian,
You, Pastor Messer and others are entitled to your opinion with regard to the CTCR and the resolutions of the LC-MS. You are then in dissent from them and the positions of your church body.
Dave Benke
President Benke,
I don't understand what you mean that I (and others) am in dissent from the positions of my church body. Are you suggesting that the 2004 CTCR Guidelines for Participation in Civic Events established a position of our church body? The Resolution adopted in 2004 (Res. 3-06A) certainly doesn't make that claim. The Resolution adopted, in the first Resolved, simply commends those Guidelines "for study to help pastors, teachers, and church workers make decisions about participation in civic events," and in the second Resolved, resolves that "we encourage all the members of Synod to continue to study these issues under the guidance of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions as we face the ongoing challenges to bring God's unchanging Word to bear on our increasingly pluralistic and polytheistic culture."
Furthermore, the second bullet point within the first Resolved states that we make decisions about participation in civic events "That seek to take full advantage of every legitimate opportunity to proclaim clearly in the public realm that
'only in and through Jesus do we have the definitive revelation of the true and only guide,' that God 'is known as Father and Savior only through Spirit-wrought faith in Jesus Christ,' and that 'only the Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - is the object of our worship and the hope of our salvation.' [Emphasis mine]
The portion of this second bullet point in the 2004 Res. 3-06A that I have emphasized is the rub, isn't it? I suppose I could easily say that you (and others) are in dissent from the position of our church body (if we considered commendations of CTCR documents for further study as positions of our church body, which we clearly don't), since your position is that it is not necessary to proclaim clearly the exclusivity of the Christian faith in the public realm when participating in civic events. I read this bullet point and conclude that, when participating in civic events, we should proclaim clearly that ONLY Jesus is Savior, that the true God is ONLY known through Spirit-wrought faith in Christ, and that the Triune God is the ONLY God. Based on your comments in this discussion, you clearly do not read it that way. There is obviously some confusion not only on how we read this Resolution, but on how we read the Guidelines themselves, which this Resolution commends for study, which is far from putting forward an official position of our church body.
That's probably why both the 2007 and 2010 Convention delegates adopted resolutions to study this issue further, no?
If we eventually adopt an official position of our church body on this issue which states that our pastors, teachers, and church workers can participate in civic events that includes clergy of heterodox denominations and other religions without proclaiming clearly that Jesus is the ONLY Savior and that the Triune God is the ONLY God, while avoiding the sins of unionism and syncretism in such participation, then, yes, I will register my official dissent. Until then, I shall, along with the rest of the synod, study the issue, comparing the 2004 Guidelines with Scripture, our Confessions, and our Constitution, and await the further studies on this issue called for by our Convention delegates in the last two Conventions.
Lastly, I don't think the overture adopted by Pr. Henrickson's congregation and circuit forum is draconian at all. This issue is obviously one over which there is deep division in our synod and needs to be addressed. Is it draconian to suggest that we steer clear of participating in these events, when we know that it will cause offense and further divide us, until we have addressed this definitively, either through the Koinonia Project or more definitive guidelines or whatever? If we're all for working toward greater consensus and unity within our synod, shouldn't we be about the business of avoiding offense until that greater consensus and unity is reached? Actually, I'd offer an amendment to the Resolved of that overture, adding the words to the end of the Resolved, ". . . unless our rostered ministers proclaim clearly that the Triune God is the ONLY God, and that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who came down from heaven and was Incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and became Man, is the ONLY Savior for sinners; that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him." I mean, I wouldn't want our rostered ministers to shy away from proclaiming clearly (per Res. 3-06A) and providing such exclusive Christian witness in the public realm, if they were inclined to do so.