# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S321
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 321

If a called worker believes that the congregation has not proceeded
according to its constitution and bylaws in his/her resignation from a
position or contends that he/she has been improperly removed from
his/her position, the worker may request a reconciler and thereby initiate
the Dispute Resolution Process according to Bylaw 8.13 b 2.

4. When a complainant is asking for benefits with relation to a for-
mer contractual relationship, which according to Chapter VIII of
the Handbook is excluded, would it be proper for a DRP to rule
on such a matter?

Bylaw 8.02 specifically notes those matters for which the Dispute
Resolution Process does not prescribe an exclusive remedy, including
“disputes arising under contractual arrangements of all kinds.” The
Bylaw, however, provides exception in cases that involve “theological,
doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues.”

When, therefore, a dispute involves a divine call, even though it
may also include contractual elements, the presence of a call introduces
clear theological, doctrinal. and ecclesiastical considerations and is a
case for which the Dispute Resolution Process is intended.

Adopted May 5, 1999

Propriety of RSO Status for and Participation
in Lutheran Association of Missionaries and Pilots
(99-2145)

A pastor questioned whether Lutheran Association of Mission-
artes and Pilots (LAMP), which employs both LCMS and ELCA
clergy, should continue to be granted Recognized Service Organi-
zation (RSO) status by the Synod and whether LCMS pastors
should be part of LAMP:

Given Bylaw 14.03 a (especially “respects and does not act contrary
to the doctrine and practice of Synod”), and given Art. VI ¢ of the
LCMS Constitution (“participating in heterodox tract and missionary
activities”), may LAMP be given RSO status according to the LCMS
constitution? May LCMS pastors be part of LAMP, a mission organi-
zation by self-definition, determined to spread the Gospel of Christ,
even though the organization welcomes clergy of heterodox church
bodies as part of its professional staff?

The Commission’s response to these questions follows. First,
“May the Lutheran Association of Missionaries and Pilots (LAMP)
be given Recognized Service Organization (RSO) status under
Bylaw 14.03?”

Bylaw 14.03 a states that RSO status may be granted to a ser-
vice organization that extends the mission and ministry of the
Synod. Bylaw 14.03 then states that RSO status signifies that the
service organization:

[a.] while independent of the Synod, fosters the mission and min-
istry of the church,

(b.] engages in program activity that is in harmony with the pro-
grams of the boards of the Synod, and

[c.] respects and does not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of
the Synod.

Bylaw 14.03 c states that within the area of its responsibility,
each board of the Synod may determine those organizations to
which RSO status will be given according to policies adopted by
Synod’s Board of Directors (Bylaw 14.03 d).

The Bylaws of the Synod require that for a service organization
to be given RSO status, it must meet the three criteria set forth in a
previous paragraph of this opinion and the procedure for granting
RSO status must be in accord with applicable policies of the
Synod’s Board of Directors. Whether or not this was done relative
to LAMP is a factual question that cannot be determined by this
Commission. Such questions should be presented to the board that
granted RSO status. If new information is available that may call
into question the continued RSO status of an organization, the
board should be asked to review its decision.

If the member of the Synod is thereafter of the opinion that the
board which granted RSO status did not follow the prescribed pro-
cedure, he may proceed, if he so chooses, to utilize the synodical
Dispute Resolution Process to resolve the question as to whether
the granting board acted in accord with Bylaw 14.03 and the ap-
plicable policies of the Board of Directors.

It should be noted, however, that the wisdom of granting RSO
status is within the sole purview of the granting board. Only the
procedure followed in granting RSO status can be tested in the syn-
odical Dispute Resolution Process.

In answer to the second question, “may pastors of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod be a part of LAMP?” Art. VI of the
Synod’s Constitution indicates that one of the conditions of mem-
bership in the Synod is the renunciation of unionism and syn-
cretism of every description, including participation in heterodox
tract and missionary activities. Whether being “part of LAMP” is
participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities ts again a
factual question beyond the purview of this Commission. Concerns
that individual membership or participation in LAMP by a pastor of
the Synod may be in violation of Art. VI of the Synod’s Constitu-
tion should be brought to the attention of the District President who
has ecclesiastical supervision of that pastor in accord with Bylaw
2.27.

Adopted May 5, 1999

Memberships in Pan-Christian
Organizations (99-2146)

A parish pastor asked the opinion of the CCM regarding the
propriety of synodical congregations or Districts holding member-
ship in pan-Christian organizations such as the Willow Creek As-
sociation. Several specific questions were asked of the Commis-
sion:

1. May congregations or Districts of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod hold membership in pan-Christian organizations
such as Willow Creek Association, et al., especially as related to
Art. VI of the Synod’s constitution, particularly “renunciation of
unionism and syncretism” and “participating in heterodox tract
and missionary activities”?

No

. In its Web page, where it promotes membership, the president of
the Willow Creek Association states: “We believe that as mem-
bers of the Association share ideas, strategies, and resources, and
learn from each other’s successes as well as mistakes, we will all
increase our ministry impact.” Do such sharing of strategies and
resources violate the prohibition of participating in heterodox
tract and missionary activities as set forth in Art. VI 2 c of the
Synod’s constitution?

Ww

. ls the use by members of the LCMS of the instructional materials,
videos, et al. of the Willow Creek Association a violation of the
mandate for exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymn-
books, and catechisms in church and school as set forth in Art.
V1 4 of the Synod’s constitution?

In order to respond to these questions, a differentiation must first be
made between Districts of the Synod and congregations that are mem-
bers of the Synod. Regarding Districts, “The Synod is not merely an
advisory body in relation to a District. A District is the Synod itself per-
forming the functions of the Synod” (Bylaw 4.07 a). “The Constitution
of the Synod is also the constitution of each District. The Bylaws of the
Synod shall be primarily the bylaws of the District. A District may
adopt additional bylaws, regulations, and resolutions necessary or
proper for its own administration or for effectively carrying on the work
of the Synod. Such bylaws, regulations, and resolutions shall not con-
flict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod” (Bylaw 4.07 b).

Since, therefore, a District is the Synod in that place, the question
becomes whether the Synod may be a member of the Willow Creek As-
sociation. Since the propriety of such membership would in large part
be a doctrinal question, and since Art. XI B | of the Synod’s Constitu-
tion states that the President of the Synod has the supervision regarding
the doctrine of the Synod, it therefore is the duty of the President of the
Synod to determine if such membership by the Synod is appropriate. If
there is disagreement with the conclusion reached by the President, such
controversy is to be resolved under the procedures set forth in Bylaw
1.09 or by an action of the national convention of the Synod according
to Bylaw 3.73.

On the other hand, regarding the membership of congregations in
pan-Christian organizations, Art. VII of the Constitution of the Synod
provides as follows:

In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical
government exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with re-
spect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is

2001 Convention Workbook