LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 328

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

328 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

ter. Jf satisfactory information is not available, please ask the CCM to

render an opinion.

Response: The Commission replies that there are no provistons
in the Constitution or Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod that prohibit individual members of the Synod from also
holding voting membership in a congregation that is a member of
the Synod. Art. IJ of the Bylaws addresses membership in the
Synod. Nothing in that Article in any way prohibits individual
members of the Synod from also being voting members of their
local congregation. The Commission recognizes that congregations
are autonomous and self-governing (Constitution, Art. II). A con-
gregation may therefore limit who is eligible to vote in its voters’
assembly. However, the passage from the faculty handbook quoted
above is based on an incorrect premise about the interplay of syn-
odical membership and congregation membership.

Adopted Sept. 14, 1999

Questions re 1998 Synodical Res. 7-12
and Dual Membership (99-2158)

Two congregations in letters dated May 30, 1999, and July 16,
1999, raised questions regarding the applicability of 1998 synodical
convention Res. 7-12 to specific situations. The substance of each
question queries whether certain congregations are included in the
term “dual membership.” The Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters asserts jurisdiction in this case by virtue of Bylaw 3.905 d,
which states that the CCM shall “interpret the Synod’s Constitu-
tion, Bylaws, and Resolutions upon the written request of a mem-
ber.”

Question 1; Does synodical Res. 7-12 apply to Palisades
Lutheran Church of Pacific Palisades, CA?

Opinion: The second question raises a similar issue but pertains
to a fact situation arising in the Lutheran Church of Arcata, CA.

Question 2: Do two congregations that share pastors and prop-
erty, that are each incorporated separately, that each pays to their
respective synods, that hold title to their church property as tenants
in common, and that have no members that are members of both
congregations and/or both synods, have dual membership status
with the meaning of 1998 convention Res. 7-12? If so, what are the
scriptural and legal bases for such a finding?

Opinion: The fact situation underlying the first question paral-
lels that of the second. Throughout its history Holy Cross Lutheran
Church of Pacific Palisades has been a member of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). In 1970 Holy Cross entered
into fellowship with an American Lutheran Church (ALC) congre-
gation, the Lutheran Church of the Palisades. In 1988 the Lutheran
Church of the Palisades followed its ALC into membership in the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Representatives
for Pacific Palisades assert that they are not dual membership con-
gregations but are in fact two separate congregations holding prop-
erty together, doing business together as a congregation, and en-
gaging in altar and pulpit fellowship with one another in
accordance with a congregational-based fellowship agreement.
Both congregations share one pastor and one name in the eommu-
nity.

The facts underlying the second question are somewhat simi-
lar. An LCMS congregation, Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, and
an ELCA congregation, Faith Lutheran Church, are each incorpo-
ratcd separately under the laws of the state of California. Each con-
gregation has its own corporate articles and bylaws. Together, they
do business as the Lutheran Church of Arcata, sharing pastors and
property. The people who share the parish building are members
of either the LCMS congregation or the ELCA congregation, but
not both. No person of either congregation holds dual membership
in the other. Our Redeemer has never held membership in the
ELCA. The deed to the church property is held in the names of
“Our Redeemer’s Lutheran Church (LCMS) and Faith Lutheran
Church (ELCA), as tenants in common.” This arrangement was
formed in 1971 when Our Redeemer’s property was taken by emi-
nent domain for freeway construction. Over the years the combined
congregations were served by two pastors. one belonging to the

2001 Convention Workbook

LCMS. and the other to the ELCA. Currently the congregations are
being served by an LCMS pastor.

Do these tact situations create dual memberships under the lan-
guage of 1998 synodical Res. 7-12? The Commission’s interpreta-
tion is that they do not. Neither LCMS congregation holds, or has
ever held, membership in the ELCA or its predecessors.

The Commission is well aware, however, that the substance of
these congregational agreements raises a number of troubling is-
sues. In the instant cases involving Pacific Palisades and the
Lutheran Church of Arcata, the effects are virtually identical to a
dual membership scenario. Only the technical requirements of for-
mal dual membership remain absent.

Members of the Synod are bound together by a common con-
fession of faith. Art. I] of the Constitution of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod is unalterable. Every member of the
Synod “accepts without reservation: 1. The Scriptures of the Old
and the New Testament as the written Word of God and the only
rule and norm of faith and of practice; 2. All the Symbolical Books
ot the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated
statement and exposition of the Word of God.” In Art. UI. “The
Synod, under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, shall—l.
Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6;
1 Cor. 1:10), work through its official structure toward fellowship
with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense
against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy.”

Art. VI of the Constitution stipulates conditions of membership.
It provides conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the
Synod. Such conditions include inter alia:

I. Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article I.
2. Renunciation of unionism and syncrelism of every description,
such as:
a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by minis-
ters of the church;
b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox
congregations or of congregalions of mixed confession:

A congregation attempting to create or maintain unilateral altar
and pulpit fellowship with a non-member congregation will in-
evitably open itself to doctrinal scrutiny. Every member of the
Synod has a right to challenge such an arrangement if it is found
wanting in light of the Scriptures, the Confessions, the Constitu-
tion, the Bylaws, or the resolutions of Synod. Those charged with
doctrinal oversight bear special responsibility to carefully investi-
gate the theological implications of cach situation and take appro-
priate action.

Three additional questions were submitted by the Lutheran
Church of Arcata.

Question 3: Since the LCMS dissolved altar and pulpit tellow-
ship with the ALC, does convention Res. 7-12 truly apply to parish
fellowships established prior to the dissolution? If so, what are the
scriptural and legal bases for such a finding?

Question 4: Do all congregations joined in “congregational fel-
lowship” fall within the definition of “dual membership”? If so,
what are the scriptural and legal bases for such a finding?

Opinion: \n light of the response of the CCM to the previous
questions, no response is necessary to these questions.

Question 5: How is it possible, under the LCMS Constitution
and Bylaws, for parish partnerships and fellowship to exist and be
approved between the LCMS and ELCA in the foreign/interna-
tional mission field and not in the domestic mission field?

Opinion: The Commission believes the factual assumptions of
the question may be incorrect. There are, in fact, joint domestic en-
deavors between the ELCA and the LCMS. These efforts, however,
do not involve altar and pulpit fellowship.

Adopted Oct. 20, 1999