# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S202
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

202

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

public use by members of Synod? What about the
Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer and
Hymnal 1979? By what method would doctrinally
impure worship materials be identified and their
usage made to cease by members of Synod?
Opinion: The commission is responsible for interpreting the
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. The answer to this question, with regard to specific materials, would
be a finding of fact that lies outside the authority of the commission. The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not
identify a particular “method” by which “doctrinally impure
worship materials” would be identified. This is a matter for ecclesiastical supervision (Const. Art. III 8; XI B 1–3; XII 7–8),
which is carried out with reference to the confessional position
of the Synod (Const. Art. II), as applied in doctrinal resolutions and statements of the Synod (Bylaws 1.6–9), and with
the assistance of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (Bylaw section 3.9.5). Materials inconsistent with the
confessional position of the Synod (Const. Art. II) are not to
be used in Synod congregations (Const. Art. VI 4). The use of
such materials, despite futile admonition, is incompatible with
membership in the Synod (Const. Art. XIII 1) and would appropriately be addressed by the district president’s evangelical
advice, admonition, and reproof (Bylaw 4.4.4 [b, e], 4.4.5–6),
and, if necessary, application of the ecclesiastical supervision
process delineated in the Bylaws (Bylaw section 2.14).
Question 2: Surely, scrutinizing all the subtle nuances and
theological particulars of a Divine Service and
hundreds of hymns to determine doctrinal purity
is too large a task for any individual or small
group (no matter how bright and orthodox)
which is why we have a Synod in the first place—
to provide, among other things, reliably sound
hymnbooks and catechisms! Given these realities,
doesn’t Const. Art. VI 4 require exclusive use of
an actual, published, hymnbook/agenda, whose
content is fixed and can be carefully scrutinized
by all LCMS churches and schools, such that the
usage of ad hoc “contemporary/creative” worship
materials—that change week to week and season
to season—would be in violation of Const. Art.
VI 4?
Opinion: While several of Synod’s objectives (Const. Art. III
1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) are furthered by Synod’s provision of carefully
developed, thoroughly reviewed and approved worship materials, such as our hymnals, and while encouraging congregations to “strive for uniformity in church practice” is itself an
objective of the Synod (Const. Art. III 7), the same objective
acknowledges that the congregations may also develop “an
appreciation for a variety of responsible practices and customs
which are in harmony with our common profession of faith.” This
balanced approach is reflected in 2016 Res. 4-04A (Proceedings,
147–8), “To Appeal to the LCMS Congregations, Workers, and
Institutions within Christian Freedom and for Love’s Sake to
Retain a Common Order of Service for the Lord’s Supper” (see
also 2010 Res. 2-05, “To Commend Theses on Worship,” and,
regarding hymnody, 2013 Res. 3-12A, “To Affirm Our Worship
Treasures Old and New and Commend the Document, Text,
Music, Context”). “Doctrinally pure materials” are not limited
to those materials produced and/or prior approved in some
2019 Convention Workbook

fashion by the Synod or its agencies. Members of the Synod
are expected to use diligent care and discernment in selecting
for use only those materials consonant with the confessional
position of the Synod. Members (individual and congregational) are encouraged to take to heart such advice as Synod and
its proper agencies provide. When members have questions,
they should seek advice from their ecclesiastical supervisors.
Question 3: In practice, doesn’t Const. Art. VI 4 require
exclusive use of one of the three hymnals officially
approved by Synod in convention—and if not,
why not?
Opinion: See the answers to questions 1 and 2, above. Const.
Art. VI 4 requires “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda,
hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school.” The centrality of these materials in maintaining the faith—in the lives
of our people and the life of our congregations and Synod—is
ensconced in this constitutional requirement. While the article
does not require “exclusive use of officially approved agenda,
hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school,” members
of the Synod are expected to use diligent care and discernment
in selecting for use only those materials consonant with the
confessional position of the Synod. Members (individual and
congregational) are encouraged to take to heart such advice as
Synod and its proper agencies provide. When members have
questions, they should seek advice from their ecclesiastical
supervisors.
Adopted February 2–3, 2018

Questions regarding Const. Art. VI 2 (18-2875)
A member pastor of the Synod, by a January 19, 2018,
email, posed the following questions to the commission, some
regarding Const. Art. VI 2, and others, regarding Bylaw 1.8.3.

Regarding Const. Art. VI 2:
Question 1: As used here, is unionism different than syncretism?
Opinion: Article II of the original 1847 Constitution of the
Synod addressed the conditions under which an individual or
a congregation could become a part of the Synod and have
fellowship with the Synod. (Since 1924, this has been treated
under Article VI.) The 1847 Constitution, in Article II 3, used
the phrase aller Kirchen- und Glaubensmengerei in describing
what members of the Synod were required to renounce; the
same phrase was used in Article VI 2 when the Constitution
was restructured in 1924. The term Kirchenmengerei means,
most naturally, the mixing or mingling of churches with a
different confessional basis or outward church practices of
the same. The term Glaubensmengerei means, most naturally,
the mixing or mingling of beliefs or confessions. In 1924,
when the first official English translation of the Constitution
of the Synod was completed from the 1924 German text, the
phrase unionism and syncretism of every description was used to
translate aller Kirchen- und Glaubensmengerei. While in today’s
usage the meaning of the terms unionism and syncretism may
vary, depending on context, in interpreting the constitution,
they must be understood in their originally intended meaning
and context.
The constitution then proceeded to give three examples
of activities that would be identified as the mingling or mixing of churches and/or beliefs, without distinguishing some as
Kirchenmengerei or unionism and others as Glaubensmengerei or