# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S192
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

192

UNPRINTED REPORT AND LATE OVERTURES

truly a sad fact.” They add to longer-standing disagreements between our Synod and the ELCA over the nature
of Scripture, the authority of the Lutheran Confessions,
what is necessary for church fellowship, whether women can
be pastors, and the issues of abortion and homosexuality.
Recent decisions of the ELCA have the potential to affect Lutheran school associations in the following areas:
1. The interpretation of Scripture and especially key doctrines, e.g., creation (including issues such as abortion
and sexual identity), the Lord’s Supper, justification, and
the pastoral office. Of particular concern is the issue of
church fellowship, i.e., participation of Episcopal, Moravian, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in
America, or United Church of Christ persons serving
ELCA congregations in teaching religion classes or leading chapel at association schools;
2. The application of Confessional standards;
3. The development and use of religion curriculum and
teaching materials.
In these and similar areas, the mission to teach pupils
and their families “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) is
of prime importance.
II. Task Force Procedures
The touchstones above enumerate some of the concerns
that ELCA actions raised among task force members. Our
next challenge was to assess the impact these concerns may
have on existing association schools.
The TF surveyed the constitutions, bylaws, and practices of present school RSOs. First, copies of the constitutions and bylaws of all current RSO school associations
were divided among TF members for review, with attention
to items such as who may vote; qualifications for chief administrator and faculty, board chairperson and other leaders; doctrinal stance; and statements regarding curriculum,
qualifications for association membership, and purpose.
Based on this review, the TF constructed a survey that
dealt with two major areas: (1) general information about
the association and (2) ecclesiastical issues. (See the appendix to this report.) Of the 108 RSO school associations,
105 responded to the survey. The TF thanks and commends
association officials for their extraordinary responsiveness.
Finally, to understand the practices of associations with
ELCA members more fully, the TF conducted extensive inperson or long-distance interviews with school association
representatives. It tested its interview format with representatives of three St. Louis area school associations and
had later conversations with representatives of six other
RSO school associations from coast to coast.
III. Findings
Reading of Constitutions and Bylaws
Many associations allowed some level of membership by
ELCA congregations. Some had a quota limiting non-LCMS
membership to a specified minority percentage of association churches. Others required non-LCMS congregations to
be non-voting. Still others contained no limitations, treating all association congregations equally. Further, many of
the constitution and bylaw documents were written more
than ten years ago and assumed, but did not require, that
200l Convention Proceedings

the chief administrator be LCMS and that preference be
given to calling LCMS teachers.
Survey
The survey showed that in most RSO schools great effort is made to respect and not act contrary to the Synod’s
doctrine and practice.
Survey results may be grouped in three categories:
Associations: About one-third (34 of 108) of LCMS RSO
school associations had member congregations from
the ELCA and/or other church bodies with which the
LCMS is not in fellowship. Survey forms were received from all 34 RSO associations with ELCA
membership. Among these, 77% (518 of 674) of the
congregations were LCMS. Twenty-one percent (7 of
34) had member congregations of church bodies
other than LCMS or ELCA. In 9% (3 of 34) of these
associations, there were more ELCA congregations
than LCMS congregations. Also, 12% (4 of 34) of
these associations had more ELCA board members
than LCMS board members.
Religious instruction: In 21% (7 of 34) of the associations
with ELCA churches, there were ELCA members
teaching religion classes. In 77% (26 of 34), LCMS
pastors or teachers were responsible for supervising
chapel services. In 79% (27 of 34), ELCA pastors or
teachers occasionally conducted chapel services. In
35% (12 of 34), chapel services have been conducted
by ELCA female clergy or clergy interns. Most (91%;
31 of 34) of these associations did not offer Communion in their school chapel services; at the three
schools that did, all those who were baptized and believed in the real presence were invited to commune.
Governance: In 71% (24 of 34) of the associations that include ELCA churches, it was required that the principal be a member of an LCMS congregation. Close to
half (41%) of these associations (14 of 34) reported that
no problems due to doctrinal differences have emerged
in their associations. Some 59% of these associations
(20 of 34) reported that at some time there had been
doctrinal differences, but these were resolved by the
principal or executive director, LCMS doctrine, and
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
(A statistical summary of the survey results for the 34
school associations with non-LCMS membership and a listing of all 108 RSO school associations is available upon request from Ken Schurb at the Synod’s International Center.)
Interviews with Administrators
The TF was impressed by the desire of all administrators interviewed to reach students with the Gospel. Their
other comments to the TF included:
• they want to call LCMS rostered workers and remain on
the roster themselves;
• RSOs should espouse LCMS position, but schools themselves should determine what accords with acceptable
practice;
• compliance should not be forced;
• the schools must be ecumenical to survive;