# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 27 31 2026_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

time assiduously maintaining (Ag. 682, “Constitutional Comments on the Present Controversy Within the
Synod,” Minutes of Oct. 11, 1974; published in Lutheran Witness as “An Analysis of Assertions in Present
Controversy”): “The question is not: ‘How may Seminex students be qualified for the ministry in The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod?’ The question rather is: ‘How has the Synod decided that it wishes to
have pastors trained, qualified, called, ordained, and installed in its congregations?’ In answer to that
question the Synod has spoken again and again. Perhaps no other subject receives as much attention in the
bylaws. The Synod has stated in great detail that it will train its own pastors, set its own requirements, do
its own certifying, etc. In short, the Synod has made it plain that it will not permit a small group within the
Synod to usurp these functions which the Synod has reserved to itself.”
Thus, provided the member teaches and practices entirely in accordance with the confessional standard of
the Synod, membership in the Synod is not incompatible with teaching outside the Synod’s designated
structures. (Teaching in such capacity does not qualify one to be called or to have an active position on the
roster of the Synod, but would be done, in the absence of another contemporaneous position of active
service under Bylaw 2.11.1, as an inactive member, candidate or emeritus. Nor does the fact that members
of the Synod are teaching in such capacity confer the ability on a faculty to declare graduates qualified for
service in any sort of church work in Synod congregations or schools; the Synod has definite mechanisms
for that otherwise.)
Another factor must be considered, that raised most directly by the question as posed, which is the
constitutional expectation that all members of the Synod renounce “unionism and syncretism of every
description” (Const. Art. VI 2). When does an orthodox contribution to a heterodox effort violate the
conditions of membership (cf. Const. Art. VI 2)? To this question, broadly speaking, the commission has
spoken in Op. 18-2875 (Minutes of April 6–7, 2018):
For the purposes of understanding the Constitution—while there may be shades of
meaning, with unionism tending more toward commingling practices or services and
syncretism toward commingling doctrines or teaching—there is considerable overlap
between the two. An historically defensible, precise dissection of these terms is unlikely to
be possible. For the purposes of understanding the Constitution, though, it is not necessary
sharply to divide the terms. The phrase “aller Kirchen- und Glaubens-mengerei” or
“unionism and syncretism of every description” is best understood as an expansive single
thought—perhaps a pleonasm, the use of two almost identical terms to avoid any possible
misunderstanding or minimization.
While other terms are also used in the literature of the Synod to express the same concept,
the Constitution clearly states that it is the expectation of members of the Synod that,
because they “accept without reservation the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions”
(Const. Art. II), they would renounce activities of every description that would commingle
the confession, teaching, or practice of that true and salutary confession with any contrary
(and therefore false and harmful) confession, teaching, or practice. Whether or not any
particular activity or “fact situation” would be determined to constitute unionism or
syncretism (Kirchen- und Glaubensmengerei) and, therefore, to constitute a violation of
the conditions of membership in the Synod, falls outside of the authority of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters. Such a decision is properly the responsibility of the
ecclesiastical supervisor of that member.
…
The positive requirement of the Constitution is not only that members avoid the prohibited
example activities, but that they renounce unionism and syncretism of every description.
Contrary to that required renunciation are any activities inviting the reasonable inference
that the exclusive teaching and practice of Synod’s confession (Const. Art. II) may, as a
matter of indifference or insignificance, be laid aside, replaced by, or comingled with other
CCM Minutes – May 28–31, 2026 – Page 153