Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 393

2026 Convention Workbook
358 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
century (namely, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus), contain 
texts of the  Gospel of Mark with unusual truncations (that is, 
visually abnormal endings when compared to the  appearance of 
other endings of books in the same codex), excluding the last 12 
verses, Mark 16:9–20, as they appear in our Bibles; and 
WHEREAS, This truncation is unheard of before the writings of 
Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D.  339) in the  fourth century (and later 
those of Jerome [A. D. 420], apparently quoting him) and his 
comment about texts that exclude this section does not preclude his 
own acknowledgment of that text as authoritative, nor  Jerome’s 
omitting it in his Latin translation of the Bible, and since 19th -
century scholarship that began to be critical of the inclusion of these 
12 verses as well as Moses ’ authorship of the Pentateuch has be en 
well countered by the arguments of scholarship supporting the 
church’s and Bible’s claims of its own origins by such scholars as 
John Burgan (A.D. 1813 –88) and expressed carefully and 
exhaustively by modern scholars such as Nicholas Lunn (see 
Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for 
the Authenticity of Mark 16:9– 20 [Eugene, OR: Pickwick 
Publications, 2014]); and 
WHEREAS, Churchmen, such as Eusebius and Jerome, being 
aware of these texts and their  omission in some manuscripts, and 
living much closer to the historical context of their appearance, yet 
neither speaking against their inclusion, nor themselves excluding 
these texts as authoritative from their own use and  quotation, were 
in a much better position to evaluate their authenticity than the 
musings of modern scholars  of Scriptures, let alone unbelieving 
scholars who have a record of attacking the veracity of the sacred 
text; and 
W
HEREAS, Exclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark by textual 
critics renders this Gospel incomplete  and prone to erroneous 
interpretation as compared to the other Gospels, because the 
resurrection would be thus promised by the Lord (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 
10:33–34) without witness of its fulfillment, because Christ’s 
personal promise of the Holy Spirit and commissioning His 
disciples to preach to the world would be  missing, and because 
lacking both a birth and a resurrection narrative Mark’s Gospel 
would invite a Gnostic interpretation; and 
W
HEREAS, Mark 16:16 is the authoritative statement in Scripture 
on Baptism, chosen by Luther to teach about the efficacy of Baptism 
in his Large and Small Catechisms, and is a cornerstone of the  
doctrine of Baptism that is memorized and used to affirm baptismal 
regeneration in all our congregations; and 
WHEREAS, Footnotes flagging words and sections of modern 
Bibles as missing in ancient versions serve no purpose for laymen, 
except to undermine their confidence in God’s preserving the text 
of His Word, but only invite them to believe the Bible is flawed and 
inaccurate; and 
WHEREAS, Our Synod was warned in the events of the Seminex 
walkout in 1974 that reason is not to be used to silence or to replace 
the Word of God by its judgments (magisterial use of reason), but 
is to be used to draw out from Scriptures what God is saying in it 
(ministerial use of reason); and 
W
HEREAS, The Synod affirmed that all Scriptures are inspired by 
God and not subject to private interpretation (LCMS CTCR, The 
Inspiration of Scripture [March 1975]), but to the interpretation the 
Holy Spirit gives in scriptural context, by which the Holy Spirit 
gives faith and salvation when and where He will; therefore be it 
Resolved, That the Synod affirm in convention that all of the 
Gospel according to St. Mark (including Mark 16:9–20), as it 
appears in over 95 percent of the Scriptures and b iblical versions 
witnessed in all the history of the c hurch, is not to be demoted to 
the status of antilegomenon but affirmed as inspired and 
authoritative; and be it further 
Resolved, That the Synod exhort Concordia Publishing House to 
include in this section of their published Bibles and commentaries: 
“Though a few ancient texts omit these verses, they are well attested 
in the vast majority of ancient New Testament texts and to the 
present day”; and be it finally 
Resolved, That the Synod exhort our seminaries thoroughly to 
train future pastors in the arguments employed to support inclusion 
or exclusion of Mark 16:9 –
20 in the sacred text and to further 
remind them both of Christ ’s promise that Scripture would not be 
broken (John 10:35) and that His Word would never pass away 
(Matt. 24:35) as well as the s criptural admonitions and curses 
against adding or subtracting from God’s Word (Deut. 12:32; Rev. 
22:18–19). 
St. Paul 
Brookfield, IL 
Ov. 5-37 
To Clarify Doctrine of Holy Trinity over against 
Eternal Functional Subordination of the Son 
WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod confesses the 
doctrine of the Holy Trinity according to the Holy Scriptures and 
the ecumenical creeds, especially the Nicene and Athanasian 
Creeds, that confess the Son as homoousios  with the Father, equal 
in power, majesty, and glory; and 
WHEREAS, Lutheran orthodoxy has consistently taught that 
distinctions within the Holy Trinity are grounded in the eternal 
relations of origin , namely, that  the Father begets, the Son is 
begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds, and not in eternal relations 
of authority and submission; and 
WHEREAS, The teaching commonly known as the Eternal 
Functional Subordination of the Son to the Father (EFS), asserts an 
eternal relation of authority and obedience between the Father and 
the Son within the immanent Trinity, thereby introducing 
subordination into th e Trinity, which the Scriptures and Lutheran 
Confessions assign to Christ only according to His assumed human 
nature; and 
WHEREAS, A recent ly published scholarly article, “Eternal 
Subordination of the Son: Arianism Past and Present,” ( Carl L. 
Beckwith, Concordia Theological Quarterly 89, no. 4 [Oct, 2025]: 
307–328) has further demonstrated that EFS is incompatible with 
the Lutheran orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; and 
WHEREAS, This same article exposes the chief proponents of EFS 
among evangelicals and further notes, in a documented footnote, 
that a book published by Concordia Publishing House  (CPH) 
(Matthew C. Harrison and John T. Pless, eds., Women Pastors? The 
Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective , [CPH, 
2008]), had at one time promoted or reflected this false teaching ; 
and 
WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations 
(CTCR) report, The Order of Creation (adopted 2022), treats a focal 
text for EFS proponents, 1 Corinthians 11:3, in a way that could be 
read ambiguously or misleadingly, insofar as the text’s reference to