# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S338
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

338 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

foundations for any reason without the approval of the Board of
Directors of the Synod.

Adopted June 10-11, 2002

Request for Reconsideration of Opinion 02-2267
re Role of Matthew 18 in the Synod’s Dispute
Resolution Process (02-2277)

The First Vice-President of a District, in a letter dated June 4,
2002, submitted a “Motion for Reconsideration” of the Commis-
sion’s opinion 02-2267, expressing disappointment and offering
detailed explanation why said opinion should be reconsidered.

Qpinion: In support of the request for reconsideration, the writer
points out the requirements under both Bylaw Chapter VIII (the
Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process) and Bylaw 6.47 (dealing with
complaints against faculty members) that a face-to-face meeting
and informal resolution efforts occur between the complainant and
the accused before a formal dispute process may be invoked. The
writer further suggests that, by implication, such must also be the
case under Bylaw 2.27, particularly in view of prior Commission
opinions 02-2251 and 02-2257. Unfortunately, the suggested analy-
sis ignores the differences between the purpose and express process
of, Bylaw 2.27 and the purpose and express processes set forth in
the other two circumstances. Bylaw 2.27 is expressly a process to
terminate congregational or individual membership.

Because the goal of the church is not expulsion, but reconcilia-
tion, the drafters of the bylaws and the conventions which adopted
them recognized the desire to seek such reconciliation in lieu of
proceeding unhesitatingly down the adversarial process which may
lead to expulsion. Bylaw 2.27 a 2 expressly requires the responsible
District President to follow the guidelines of Matthew 18 and en-
courages him to seek reconciliation. As prior opinions of the Com-
mission have recognized, attempts to seek reconciliation are in-
cluded in the District President’s duty to act on a complaint within
90 days. During such efforts, the time requirements of the bylaw
may be tolled. In opinion 02-2251, the Commission attempted to
clarify the resulting connection between Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter
VIII of the Bylaws. ,

As reflected in opinion 02-2257, a Bylaw 2.27 process cannot
be dismissed on the basis that Matthew 18 has not been followed.
Bylaw 8.05 requires a face-to-face meeting as a precondition to
proceeding to a formal dispute resolution process initiated under
Chapter VIII. Bylaw 2.27 has no such precondition because it is a
reflection of the church’s ecclesiastical responsibility to assure a
member’s continued adherence to the Synod’s qualifications for
membership. That responsibility is independent of the source by
which potential unfitness becomes known to the church, and even
independent of any wrongful conduct on the part of the person
bringing such allegations. As the Commission earlier suggested,
the complaint may even be initiated by someone outside the
church, or even a non-Christian who may refuse to consider recon-
ciliation under Matthew 18 or any other process.

Opinion 02-2267 further recognized that “because the goal of
all Christians should first be reconciliation, it is incumbent on those
within the church to always follow Matthew 18.” This is demon-
strated in Bylaw 2.27 by its provision that the guidelines of Matt.
18:15-16 be followed with the assistance of a small committee if
necessary. Whenever possible, members of the church must honor
Matthew 18 and must seek reconciliation. Failure of a member to
act in good faith in seeking such reconciliation should itself be rec-
ognized as giving offense and should be addressed by the respon-
sible District President.

Adopted June 10-11, 2002
Interpretation of Article VI 2 b (02-2278)

A pastor of the Synod, teaching at an educational institution of
the Synod, requested an opinion regarding the Article VI prohibi-
tion against taking part in sacramental rites of heterodox congre-
gations or of congregations of mixed confessions, particularly as it
pertains to participation in the Lord’s Supper.

2004 Convention Workbook

Question: Could you explain the exact meaning of Article VI 2
b of the Constitution which proscribes members of Synod from
“taking part in the ...sacramental rites of heterodox congregations
or of congregations of mixed confessions”; specifically, with ref-
erence to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in heterodox con-
gregations. Does this forbid members of Synod from communing
in such congregations (presumably congregations not in fellowship
with the LCMS) or does it only forbid members from being cele-
brant or helping in the distribution of the elements or some other
service at the altar?

Opinion: The Commission previously addressed issues related
to Article VI 2 of the Constitution in opinions Ag. 1930 and
98-2122. In response to a series of questions regarding the partici-
pation of synodical pastors, teachers, deaconesses, and congrega-
tions in services and events sponsored jointly by associations or
groups of churches not in church fellowship with each other, the
Commission responded:

The question of the application of the language of Article VI in the
Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is a matter
which falls within the purview of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations which is to provide study materials on the basis of
which, the Synod may determine the application. The study document
which the CTCR has prepared and which is now in circulation is in-
tended to serve that purpose. At the conclusion of this study it will be
the Synod’s responsibility in keeping with the Bylaws to make the ulti-
mate decision regarding the position of the Synod in relation to ques-
tions such as those which have been posed.

The Commission does not believe that there is a specific question of
constitutional or bylaw stipulation squarely before it and believes that it
would be presumptuous for the Commission on Constitutional Matters
to respond at this time to the questions of application which have been
posed. (Ag. 1930, March 13, 1992)

In response to the question, “Does Article VI either in 2, b, or
elsewhere forbid the participation of pastors of other churches or
confessions in the services and sacramental rites of a congregation
of the Synod?” the Commission ruled as follows: .

Article VI sets forth the conditions required of congregations and
individuals to obtain and continue to hold membership in the Synod.
To respond to the question, the Commission deems it necessary to re-
view the provisions of Article VI, paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraph 1
states that a member of the Synod must accept the confessional basis
of Article II of the Synod’s Constitution. Paragraph 2 builds on para-
graph 1 and requires a member of the Synod to renounce unionism and
syncretism of every description.

The last two words of paragraph 2 are: “such as.” These words in-
dicate that what follows in the subparagraphs of paragraph 2 are exam-
ples of that which is prohibited in the opening sentence of paragraph 2.
The subparagraphs are not, therefore, an all-inclusive listing but only
examples of prohibited activities.

Subparagraph b prohibits an individual member of the Synod from
taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congre-
gations or of congregations of mixed confession. The example in sub-
paragraph b does not address directly the question asked of the Com-
mission, namely: “Does Article VI, b, forbid participation of ministers
of heterodox congregations or congregations of mixed confession from
participating in the services or sacramental rites of a congregation that is
a member of the Synod?” However, this is the other side of the coin of
that which is prohibited in subparagraph b. It is equally unionism and
syncretism whether an individual member of the Synod participates in
the services or sacramental rites of a heterodox congregation or a con-
gregation of mixed confession or whether a minister of a heterodox con-
gregation or a congregation of mixed confession participates in the ser-
vices or sacramental rites of a congregation that is a member of the
Synod. The principle remains the same. It is contrary to the condition of
membership set forth in Article VI, 2. Neither the remainder of the Con-
stitution nor the Bylaws of the Synod provide any exception to this prin-
ciple (98-2122, Nov. 30, 1998).

Article VI indicates that taking part in a service or sacramental
rite of a heterodox congregation or a congregation of mixed con-
fession is an act of unionism and syncretism. The specific ques-
tions are then: 1) What constitutes “taking part’? 2) What consti-
tutes a “service”? 3) What constitutes a “heterodox congregation”?
4) What constitutes a “congregation of mixed confession’? The an-
swer to these questions relates to a minister of religion’s commit-