CCM – What now?

The convention recently passed a resolution “clarifying” the intent of the infamous “Nuremberg Ruling” of the CCM. It stated that a pastor could not be charged for actions if he had received prior permission from an Ecclesiastical Supervisor. The clarification said that this in no way is meant to allow false doctrine or teaching, and should never have been understood that way. So the question now : What then happens if a member acts contrary to the synod’s confession with the permission of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor? Can he be charged with wrongdoing or not? The synod has “clarified” the CCM ruling to mean the exact opposite of what they said. But surely, the CCM won’t say, “Well yes they can be charged…” which would be the CCM overruling itself in clarifying the Synod’s clarification of their ruling.
So, someone should now ask the CCM : If a member acts contrary to our confession, but has first received permission from his Ecclesiastical Supervisor, may he be charged with false doctrine and practice possibly leading to removal, or must the charges first be brought against the Ecclesiastical Supervisor in question?
My prediction : Like Roe v. Wade, this will never be fully settled, no matter how many times the convention addresses it, until it is overruled. It was simply a bad opinion. It has led to nothing but discord, and it will not be forgotten or laid to rest until it is reversed. Look for more resolutions to come the 2013 convention.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: