Well, I married a keeper. Today is my 29th wedding anniversary, and I told Miz Grace what I was planning on writing. She was delighted and considered it (this article) as a wonderful anniversary present. She is a pious layman and is keen on our church body remaining true to its confession. It is important to our “life together.” She is indeed a keeper. Nineteen years as a pastor’s wife, and she’s still all-in. Proverbs 31 and all that.

So, my question is this: “Exactly what is binding upon the consciences of members of synod?”

Here is the issue: When the CTCR approves of a document, does it dogmatize the entire document? Does it render any disagreement with the document as “dissent from the doctrinal position of the Synod as expressed in its resolutions and doctrinal statements” (1.8.2) under our bylaws that requires various procedures to be followed in registering said dissent with the CTCR? Or is the CTCR’s approval simply saying that there is no false doctrine in the document? I believe that the latter is what the CTCR is saying, but there are apparently those who think the former is the case. And some folks who disagree with me want my disagreement to be quashed, forcefully, if necessary. They seem nice.

In other words, given that the CTCR has approved the Large Catechism with Lagniappe (as it is known in my state), has the Langiappe (the extras) been dogmatized along with the text of the confessional document written by Luther himself? We have all agreed that the Large Catechism is dogma (because it is a correct exposition of Scripture), and we pastors have taken vows at our ordinations that this document will norm our preaching and teaching. In the LCMS, we make a quia subscription, meaning that it isn’t a cafeteria from which to pick and choose what we like.

That said, since the CTCR appended annotations and opinion essays to it, do those essays become part of our confessional subscription? Are the appended essays given binding, confessional status, retroactive to our ordination vows, by virtue of the CTCR speaking ex cathedra? Of course, this sounds ridiculous, but I have had people make this implication to me about the CTCR - including some who have left our synod years ago holding this belief. Are they right?

So maybe someone in authority could answer the question: the synod president, the COP, the CTCR, or some other acronym that I don’t know about, to say one way or the other. And I am not being antagonistic. I have friends in the COP and on the CTCR. I just want an answer. I think it is a reasonable request, and is an important matter that interests more than just me.

I am planning on doing some writing in opposition to some of the political, economic, and sociological opinions expressed in these essays. Now, mind you, I am not accusing anyone of false doctrine. I am not petitioning the CTCR to change the document. But I am disagreeing with some of the opinions raised in matters political, economic, and sociological. And I do also question the wisdom of bundling these essays together with our confessional document - precisely because of the confusion it has caused.

President Harrison himself said “some things might have been expressed more clearly.” Does President Harrison’s criticism run afoul of the CTCR and the 8th Commandment by saying so? Are books and papers bearing the seal of the CTCR off limits when it comes to disagreement, critique, and writing in opposition?

I’m seeking a clear answer from somebody. It is not a rhetorical question.

And are we going to enforce the limits of acceptable speech evenly across the board? I know of pastors and laity on the roster of synod who openly dissent against the synod’s biblical position on women’s “ordination” and in matters pertaining to unbiblical sexuality, and have been for years. Are such opinions only acceptable if they tilt leftward?

Although it is with disappointment, I have accepted the reality that Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications is not going to change, and is in production. That said, there is a silver lining. It would seem to me that the reality of the book becoming a published document in the open, public market of ideas makes it fair game for review, criticism, and debate. I am proceeding along those lines.

So my dear wife would like another present on our anniversary: how about some clarity from our leaders about what is dogma in our church, and what is up for debate.

Happy anniversary, Miz Grace. Here is your article, wrapped in a bow. I am a man blessed beyond measure!