Here is another item for the upcoming LCMS Convention, offered 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.

Resolution 4-05 in the first issue Today’s Business (p.105), To Encourage Mutual Conversation and Consolation of Christian Brothers and Sisters, encourages all parties in disputes to keep the Eighth Commandment, a noble enough admonition, though I can't help but wonder what in particular may have occasioned the Overtures (4-12,13 in the Convention Workbook, p278-9) that led to this proposed resolution.

Those overtures come from the Boards of Directors of the Southeastern and California-Nevada-Hawaii Districts. The first overture laments the Internet’s misuse of “social media, blogs, chatrooms, etc.” because they “may have inaccurate information and provide space for speculation, gossip, and slander” and “frequently provide a forum for comments that are not regulated or monitored” in ways that are “contrary to the Scriptures, the dispute resolution process and Koinonia” and therefore “may lead a brother or sister to break the Eighth Commandment.”  The second overture likewise calls attention to the “dispute resolution process in place in its bylaws for the sake of good order and administration by the church” in addition to listing almost verbatim the additional lamentations of the former overture.

Because of these things, the overtures continue, the resolution proposes that the Synod “condemn the use of . . . social media and its various forms to air grievances and disputes within the church against fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.”

This is a questionable leap, to say the least. Because the various forms of Internet media may be abused, therefore the Synod must condemn the use of these media for the airing of “grievances”? Depending on what the grievances are, this seems to be a non sequitur. What if the grievances in question are, say, doctrinal concerns about the recent publication of Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications? Must any discussion of these doctrinal concerns be muzzled altogether except when brought forth by the official dispute resolution process? As I pointed out earlier, the bylaw in question does not require that this be the way of discussion, but only delineates what happens if this process is entered.

It's one thing to gossip online, or for that matter to gossip at all, regardless of the form  the gossip takes, but it’s quite another to air legitimate, doctrinal, theological concerns such as have been brought forth by Gottesdienst and others.

To their credit, the floor committee that crafted the proposed resolution widened the admonition to condemn “every form of transgression against the Eighth Commandment, including that which makes use of social media and its various forms,” rather than singling out only the Internet, but I for one would have preferred that more be said about the false notion that the only way of expressing legitimate concerns has to be through the dispute resolution process. Instead, it just resolves that members “avail themselves of the dispute resolution process,” from which we could be justified in making the inference that this is the only acceptable thing to do when we have a doctrinal or theological concern.

I wonder if some sort of amendment would be a helpful clarification here, such as one that reminds members also to be vigilant about our theology and practice, as Jesus Himself bids us to do, when he warns us, “Beware of false prophets,” etc. He can hardly have meant for us merely to have our pens at the ready to register formal complains through dispute resolution processes.

This proposed resolution is only fifth in the queue, meaning that it’s likely to come up early, which is more than can be said about Resolution 5-14 (“To Address Release and Use of Luther’s Large Catechism with Annotations and Contemporary Applications”). Anything coming that far down the line is likely to be left untouched.

Proposed Resolution 4-05, if it is to be dealt with, might also have something to say about the legitimate concerns raised in regard to that book’s release. Maybe further study and review? Maybe the provision of a dedicated avenue of some sort to discuss the questions that have been raised?