Convention Concerns, Part 1: On Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications

Here following is the first of our musings concerning the upcoming LCMS Convention, in hopes of facilitating fraternal discussion and awareness for delegates and members of the Synod on matters expected to be before the Convention. Respectfully, we pray for a God-pleasing outcome and wish the Synod well.

Concerning the matter of opposition raised to the publication of the latest synodical publication of Luther’s Large Catechism with essays or annotations, we were told in no uncertain terms that the synodical leadership would be distinguishing the expressions of “theological concerns raised” about the essays (i.e., “we welcome” these, we were told) from those whose oppositions was based on racist ideologies (i.e., these “we condemn”). We appreciated the fact that this distinction was made and that theological concerns would be welcomed.

So we’re a bit disappointed to find that although there were four overtures submitted to the 2023 convention (5-30—33, Workbook pp. 304-306), and one of them requested that publication cease, for clearly stated theological reasons, this one seems to have been altogether ignored in Resolution 5-14 in Today’s Business (page 127). The proposed resolution would merely have us thank the entities responsible for producing the book and then to remind members “to use, when necessary and appropriate,  the established procedure for voicing a challenge to the doctrinal  review certification of a publication by the Synod as outlined in Bylaw 3.9.3.2.2” and to be collegial and charitable with each other and that “feedback “ should be expressed to “the President in the spirit of Christian Love with the aim of concord of theology and witness . . .”

In what way was Overture 5-32 (“To Cease and Desist Publication . . .”) incorporated into this resolution? That seems unclear, to say the least.

In addition, it’s worth stating that the bylaw cited in the proposed resolution does not require members of Synod to go through the process; it only outlines what is to happen if they do. Does the proposed resolution mean to imply that if they do not do so they are not being collegial and charitable? It wants to remind members to use the “established procedure.” Must they? And what if they don’t? Can the CTCR or CPH publish anything at all and we must conclude that anyone objecting without the bylaw process is to be seen as not being collegial and charitable? What if the CTCR were to go entirely rogue? We’re not saying they have done so, merely arguing ad absurdum. May we never object, except through the established procedure?

How, we are inclined to quip, is this resolution itself collegial and charitable? It assumes that anyone who objects must not be collegial and charitable unless he has chosen to go through the bylaw challenge process.

Is this in the way of welcoming theological concerns? Direct them to the doctrinal review process? Why not simply discuss them, or at least address them? That, it seems to me, would be the charitable thing to do. So then, in a spirit of Christian love, let’s discuss. Let’s take a careful look at the theological concerns raised in Overture 5-32.