Thursday, July 25, 2019

Convention Day 6

Wednesday was the last full day of the convention. So trying to get lots done. Finished up the elections, which took longer than hoped. A few surprises, but not too many. My Floor Committee finished up its work - our last time on the dais was in the morning. One resolution we knew would be contentious, but I was proud of the delegates who presented their concerns in a very churchly way. The same cannot be said about a resolution that came up in the afternoon concerning the now-closed Concordia College-Selma, AL. Lots of hurt feelings about that and it showed. There was lots of speaking - some relevant, some not. We did not finish with that - it's coming back up today, so we'll see how it goes. Maybe sleeping on it will improve things a little. A really good essayist today, Rev. Gottfried Martens. Go to the LCMS web page and look that one up - worth the listen.

So today is a half day, and then most people are rushing to the airport. Our district chose to stay an extra day, to have a debriefing and planning dinner meeting. On the one hand, that's nice, getting to avoid to rush to the airport and the crowds therein. On the other hand, it delays getting home by another day.

Yesterday was pretty rainy all day, and today is supposed to be the same. Not a big deal since we spend most of the day inside anyway. But have to walk from the hotel to the Convention Center, so getting a little wet. Hopefully I'll get there this morning before it really starts to rain. And hopefully we'll have a hiatus at lunch, too. I did see this walking to the Convention Center yesterday morning:


If you look closely, you can see the double rainbow.  :-)

1 comment:

Carl Vehse said...

Resolution 5-10, commends an LCC document, the defective "Cremation and the Christian" for study and discussion. To "commend" a doctrinal document for study and discussion means to present or recommend a document as suitable for approval or acceptance in such study and discussion. This means that the document is not in disagreement with the current LCMS doctrinal position.

However, the LCC document is in disagreement with the current LCMS doctrinal position as explained in the LCMS FAQ on cremation, which states, "In itself, the practice [of cremation] has no theological significance and may be used in good conscience," and concludes, "However, this is a matter of Christian freedom, and no Christian who chooses to have a loved one cremated rather than buried should be led to think that such a decision is sinful or in opposition to the Word of God."

The LCC document is defective because it falsely claims it does not want to "unduly burden the conscience of the Christian with new laws and so teach as doctrines the precepts of men." Yet, in its sophistry, that is exactly what the document does when it asserts “the need to make a clear confession of what we believe, and so be helpful and up-building to our brothers and sisters in Christ as well as those outside the Church… [which] should govern our decisions as we contemplate what should be done with our bodies at the end of life,” and then warns that a Christian’s choice of cremation, “is neither helpful nor up-building in making a clear confession of our faith” and “does not make a clear confession of our faith in the resurrection.” The LCC document in its rhetorical jargon and eisegetic wordplay, is arrogantly claiming to speak for God what God has not spoken.

This means that the only way for Floor Committee 5 to have submitted, with the approval of the CTCR and CCM, and for the convention to have voted to "commend" the LCC document, which contradicts the LCMS doctrinal position, would be to presume to have changed the LCMS doctrinal position on cremation to one that would not conflict with the heterodox LCC document and which would be a new LCMS doctrinal position that would be allow official approval or acceptance of the heterodox position of the LCC document.

This, of course, is not the way the Missouri Synod should be establishing or flip-flopping its doctrinal positions. Rather this commending for study seems to follow a tactic the disciples of Alvin Schmidt and the Bosporus-waders in the Missouri Synod use to weasel their heterodox babble into doctrinal acceptance.

As a Lutheran I am disappointed by the actions of the Missouri Synod in approving the Lufauxran Resolution 5-10.