LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 315

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 315

noted that this first objective is mirrored by the second (Art. III 2):
“Strengthen congregations and their members in giving bold witness by
word and deed to the love and work of God, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, and extend that Gospel witness into all the world.” It is incum-
bent upon those who call themselves disciples to be loving witnesses
of their faith in Christ to the world, both in sharing the Gospel and in
taking a stand against false confessions of faith, as is also clearly
demonstrated in the Lutheran Confessions, where statements of belief
and confession are followed by condemnations of doctrines that are un-
scriptural.

As we therefore “walk together” as a Synod, we bind ourselves to
the same understandings. We also bind ourselves together “in giving
bold witness by word and deed to the love and work of God” (Art. III 2)
and in providing “a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom.
16:17), and heresy” (Art. III 1) which have their source in false confes-
sions of faith. The plain language of Art. III 1, is a simple reflection of
the common faith and confession of the Christian church which
throughout history has been threatened with schism, sectarianism, and
heresy.

The provisions of Art. IIL | therefore bind the members of the
Synod to a standard of faith and confession. They also bind the Synod to
maintain these standards as it carries out its mission in the world. Its
members are to “provide a united defense” against schism, sectarian-
ism, and heresy whether these arise from within or without, always on
the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.

The concept of unity is articulated again in Bylaw 2.39 a: “The Con-
stitution, Bylaws, and all other rules and regulations of the Synod apply
to all congregational and individual members of the Synod.” Bylaw
2.39 b further provides: “The Synod expects every member congrega-
tion to respect its resolutions and to consider them of binding force if
they are in accordance with the Word of God.” When dissent of a doc-
trinal nature arises, Bylaw 2.39 c provides a procedure that is intended
to bring about doctrinal unity and to prevent the ills that are warned of
in Art. III 1 “schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy.”

2. Art. VI 2 requires members of the Synod to renounce unionism
and syncretism of every sort including “b. Taking part in the ser-
vices and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of con-
gregations of mixed confession.” Does Art 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 congrega-
tion of the Synod? Does the Constitution or Bylaws allow for any
circumstance or situation in which such participation might be
permitted?

The Commission responds that Art. VI sets forth the conditions re-
quired 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 review the provisions of Art. VI, paragraphs |
and 2. Paragraph | states that a member of the Synod must accept the
confessional basis of Art. II of the Synod’s Constitution. Paragraph 2
builds on paragraph | 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 indi-
cate 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 h does not address directly the question asked of the Com-
mission, namely: “Does Art. 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 Art. VI 2. Neither the remainder of the Consti-
tution nor the Bylaws of the Synod provide any exception to this prin-
ciple.

In addition, Res. 2-16 of the 1965 convention of the Synod, “To
Hold No Joint Worship Services Where Pulpit and Altar Fellowship

Has Not Been Established, Etc.,” does not distinguish between joint ser-
vices hosted by heterodox congregations and those hosted by congre-
gations of the Synod. It prohibits all joint worship services with those
with whom the Synod has not established pulpit and altar fellowship:

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has a well-
established policy on joint worship services on the basis of the Holy
Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions (cf. Proceedings, 194}, p.
303); therefore be it

Resolved, That no joint worship services be held with those with
whom we have not established pulpit and altar fellowship; and be it
further

Resolved, That where a problem of casuistry exists in the area of
pulpit and altar fellowship, no judgment be voiced against a pastor
or congregation without personal, fraternal confrontation and with-
out ascertaining all the facts involved.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Questions regarding Suspension Procedures (98-2130)

In a letter recetved September 28, 1998, a pastor submitted a
list of questions that he and his congregation wish to have answered
regarding suspension procedures. The Commission assumes that
questions 1, 4, and 5 are in reference to Bylaw 2.27 and not Bylaw
2.29 as stated in the letter.

1. Can a member, individual, or congregation be removed from
membership under Bylaw 2.27 for any other reason than those
defined under Art. XIII? If so, then state the other reasons using
the LCMS doctrines as defined under Art. II.

The Commission answers by pointing out that Bylaw 2.27 a I and 2
describes the process to be used by a District President to receive and
investigate complaints or act on his own knowledge regarding “facts
which could lead to the expulsion of a member from the Synod under
Article XIII of the Constitution.” Paragraph a | requires that “the next
qualified District officer ... act in the place of the District President”
when the District President is “a party to the matter in dispute, has a
conflict of interest, or is unable to act.” Paragraph a 2 allows that a small
committee may be appointed to assist in reconciliation efforts.

Paragraph c makes clear that “facts [must] form a basis for expul-
sion of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution” and para-
graph c | reiterates the significance of Art. XIII of the Constitution in
the District President’s written statement of the matter in dispute. Bylaw
2.25 a also makes reference to “expulsion from the Synod under Article
XIII of the Constitution.” It is very evident, therefore, that any action
leading to expulsion from the Synod must be on the basis of Art. XIII and
for reasons given in paragraph 1:

1. Members who act contrary to the confession laid down in Ar-

ticle II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI

or persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after previous futile admo-

nition, be expelled from the Synod.

The answer to the above question is therefore “no.” It should be
noted, however, that Bylaw 2.21 allows that cause for termination of
membership may include not only violations of conditions of member-
ship but also as is “otherwise appropriate under the Constitution or these
Bylaws.” The “offensive conduct” of Article XIII may therefore be un-
derstood to include an array of misbehaviors, bearing in mind that “giv-
ing offense” according to the Scriptures includes any serious matter
which causes a fellow Christian to stumble in his or her faith (2 Cor.
6:3; 1 Cor. 10:32).

2. Do Bylaws 2.39 a and 2.39 b clearly impart different status to the
rules and regulations of the Synod over the resolutions of the
Synod. If so, then is the power to judge the applicability of the
resolutions of the Synod clearly in the hands of the congregation
as Bylaw 2.39 b states?

It is true that Bylaw 2.39 a applies the Constitution, Bylaws, and all
other rules and regulations of the Synod “to all congregational and in-
dividual members of the Synod.” It is also true that Bylaw 2.39 b “ex-
pects every member congregation to respect its resolutions and to con-
sider them of binding force if they are in accordance with the Word of
God and if they appear applicable as far as the condition of the congre-
gation is concerned.” It should be noted, however, that Bylaw 2.39 c,
also speaking of upholding the resolutions of the Synod, does not dis-
tinguish between individual and congregational membership:

c. While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of the

Synod are expected as part of the life together within the synodical

fellowship to honor and to uphold the resolutions of the Synod. If

2001 Convention Workbook