To Create True Synod-Wide Dialogue and Study with Respect to Controverted Matters

Preamble In the Preamble to the Constitution of the Synod, two reasons are given “for the forming of a Synodical Union: (1) the example of the apostolic church (Acts 15:1–31)” and “(2) our Lord’s will that the diversities of the gifts should be for the common profit (1 Cor.12:4– 31).” Clearly, the framers of the Synod’s Constitution were convinced that unhindered, open discussion of controverted matters, leading to God-pleasing consensus, is an important basis for the existence of our church body. Further, they recognized that the Holy Spirit gives gifts to his people in diverse ways. Those diverse gifts are good for the church! Yet, such differences in gifted ness may themselves lead to differences in perspectives in issues facing the church,necessitating the process recounted in Acts 15:1–31. An analysis of the relatively recent history of the Synod shows at least three examples of the Synod engaging processes of discussion and consensus-building around controverted matters that proved wholesome to our life together in the Synod. In 1991, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations produced a document entitled “Inter-Christian Relationships: An Instrument for Study,” which sought widespread discussion of the concepts contained there in and provided forms for feedback to the Commission as it continued to consider the topic. In 2009, prior to the 2010 Synod convention where significant structural changes would be considered, the task force responsible to report to the convention held regional conferences where the concepts could be introduced, questions asked, the merit of the proposals discussed, and feedback given to the task force prior to proposals being set before a Synod convention. In the early years of the past decade, the Koinonia Project strove to gather pastors around theological issues for the purpose of discussion and agreement. In each case, members of the Synod were given ability to discuss matters of importance and potential controversy in an unfettered, non-threatening environment where no final decisions were being made. In many cases, this environment fostered greater understanding among participants and often greater consensus among them. The reason for processes like these does not escape congregational leaders, ordained or lay. When, for instance, a church desires to embark on a building program, surveys are completed, forums are held, plans are floated and discussed, all in an attempt to build widespread consensus around the program before a vote is cast to begin the project. This sort of collaborative, collegial process is necessary to elicit broad-based support for the project from the congregation. No leader wants a project like this, or a vote of any significance for that matter, to be adopted by aslimmajority. Strong super-majorities are required to prevent unnecessary division that could seriously impede the congregation’s mission. So it is with the Synod. Resolutions dealing with controverted issues that are not agreed to by large super majorities of members of Synod are divisive. They prevent us from “walking together” — the very definition of a “synod.” Whichever side loses the vote may well be convinced that they have not been heard and that the resolution is being foisted upon them, potentially filling the constituents of that perspective with resentment and resistance. This resolution puts forward a process whereby members of the Synod can be involved in “much discussion” (Acts 15:7 NIV) of controverted matters. This discussion is designed to occur prior to those issues coming to a national convention, where historically relatively few individuals have the opportunity to debate the issue for relatively short, and sometimes non-existent, periods of time. Its objective is to help the Synod walk together in greater consensus and unity.

WHEREAS, The witness of Scripture and the early Christian Church was that “after there had been much debate” (Acts 15:7 ESV) on the controverted matter regarding the circumcision of Gentile converts, a decision was made; and

WHEREAS, Divergent views on a matter can both seek to faithfully draw upon Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions; and

WHEREAS, The Synod has historically recognized the need for collegial debate, collaborative decision-making, and consensus building, enshrining “[t]he example of the apostolic church (Acts 15:1–31)” in the Preamble of its Constitution and by adopting a process whereby those principles may be observed with respect to the adoption of doctrinal statements in Bylaw 1.6.2 (b); and

WHEREAS, The Synod in Bylaw 1.6.2 speaks about “seeking to clarify its witness or to settle doctrinal controversy, so that all who seek to participate in the relationships that exist within and through the Synod may benefit and may act to benefit others,” and there by offers the possibilities of doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal statements; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 1.6.2 (b)(2), with respect to doctrinal statements, calls for a process that allows for “study and suggestions” for as much as a year on such “controverted matters”; and

WHEREAS, Resolutions voted on at Synod conventions, including doctrinal resolutions, do not inherently allow for debate or discussion that is described in Acts 15:7 as πολλῆς—much, multitudinous, plenteous, numerous, a great amount—but instead are sometimes voted on with little or no debate, even on both significant and controverted matters; and

WHEREAS, The Synod in Bylaw 3.10.1.4 indicates that “The Council of Presidents shall carry out such assignments as the Synod in convention may give to the council from time to time”; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Council of Presidents (COP) identify controverted matters as those matters that do not have a two-thirds (2/3) majority consensus of the COP as determined through a vote on particular subjects brought up for discussion by any member of the COP in their meetings; and be it further

Resolved, That such matters that do not produce this two-thirds (2/3) majority of votes within the COP for any particular taken position would be placed into a Synod-wide process agreed upon by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the COP of not less than a year that allows for fraternal discussion and edification with respect to the controverted matter; and be it further

Resolved, That this process would involve discussion face to face, preferably in-person, or if necessary, through electronic means, between leaders that reflect the divergent and diverse positions recognized by the COP’s vote on the matter; and be it further

Resolved, That these leaders produce a joint document which clearly states points of agreement as well as any unresolved matters along with the scriptural and confessional rationale for each position, presented in a manner that allows for appropriate theological reflection and study; and be it further

Resolved, That this joint document be disseminated throughout the Synod to the congregations, pastors, church workers, and people of the Synod for reflection and study; and be it further

Resolved, That the congregations, pastors, church workers, and people of the Synod have fraternal discussion using this document through a process agreed upon by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the COP; and be it further

Resolved, That after such processes any doctrinal resolution, doctrinal statement, constitutional or bylaw revision, or any action that relates directly or indirectly to the controverted matter should be considered by the Synod in convention, provided that such proposed action is in accordance with the process established by the COP; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Texas District in convention memorialize the Synod in convention with this resolution.