LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 301

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession.
Historically, “[t]aking part in the services and sacramental rites
of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession” (Art. VI 2 b [emphasis added]) is consistent with and linked
to subparagraphs “a” and “c.” Subparagraph “a” is the example of
serving as the called pastor administering Word and Sacraments.
Subparagraph “c” is an example of the activities of administering the
Word through publishing and distributing tracts (pamphlets, written
or printed materials, etc.) and the administration of the Word and
Sacraments in mission work. (These are public acts of the congregation and/or its pastor.)
Similarly, subparagraph “b” is an example of activities in administering the Word and Sacraments—thus being a co-administrant,
co-officiant, celebrant, or worship leader in some capacity in the
administering of the Divine Service, conducting either the liturgy of
the Word or of Holy Communion. This includes the official sponsorship or involvement of congregations as such, in worship “services
and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations
of mixed confession” (Art. VI 2 b). Leading or sponsoring such services with those not in church fellowship with the LCMS violates
the Synod’s biblical and confessional commitments. “[T]he mixing
of churches and of faiths” is to be “renounced[d],” “give[n] up,” or
“withdraw[n]” from.3
Context and Historical Background
For interpreting and understanding Article VI 2 b, appropriate
attention was given to the context, its historical background, and
the original intent of the Synod’s fathers when they drafted the Constitution. The source of Article VI 2 is the original 1847 founding
constitution of the Missouri Synod. The founders adopted a constitution containing a series of conditions of membership which has
been maintained with few changes to the present day. In its historical
context, Article VI 2 addressed concerns regarding the “mixing of
churches” (now described as altar and pulpit fellowship with those
with whom we are in doctrinal disagreement [mixing of faiths]), fellowship involving LCMS and non-LCMS congregations, and the
leadership of heterodox congregations by an LCMS pastor. Former
LCMS President J.A.O. Preus, in his 1981 report to the Synod convention, acknowledged as much when he stated
We also have a whole series of overtures dealing in one way or another with the subject of interchurch relations and unionism and separatism. I have been in the ministry for over 35 years and have been
involved in discussions of unionism and related matters for all of these
years. I have hoped that during my years in office some greater clarity
could be developed among us as to what really is unionism and what
must be dealt with in a disciplinary way, as over against things that
might appear to some to be a compromise of the Word of God but to
others are not such at all and no intent at compromise is intended. I hope
that the Synod will try to develop rubrics and guidelines for a church
of 3 million members in the 1980s and 1990s, rather than always relying on definitions which are a century old, which deal basically with
a European situation and are not particularly helpful for our modern
time. I believe our fathers were eminently sincere and totally correct
in what they did, but I think we have to rethink our own position on
these matters so as to make their position our own or so as to make their
position something that is workable and feasible and acceptable in our
own midst. We can all agree that we want to avoid a total separatism on
the one hand and a wild irresponsible ecumenism on the other. The difficulty is to find a middle path which will avoid both of these extremes
and which can work in all situations in our church.4

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is yes, then: Is the reception
of the Lord’s Supper by a member of the Synod in an
unofficial and private capacity, with a congregation that

301

is a member of a church body that is not in church fellowship with The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
(i.e., the ELCA), a failure of the membership requirement of “[r]enunciation of unionism and syncretism of
every description” as that phrase is used in Article VI,
section 2 of the Constitution?
Opinion: While the answer to question 1 is no, see the full answer
to question 1, which recognizes that Article VI 2 b does not address
the issue of an individual member attending a service of worship
or receiving Holy Communion. Rather, Article VI 2 a, b, and c
addresses “mixing of churches” (now described as altar and pulpit
fellowship with those with whom we are in doctrinal disagreement
[mixing of faiths]), fellowship involving LCMS and non-LCMS
congregations, and the leadership of heterodox congregations by
an LCMS pastor. The commission recognizes that the examples
given in subparagraphs a, b, and c of Article VI 2 do not provide an
exhaustive list of every example that might violate the condition of
membership that calls for the “renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description.”
Question 3: Is it proper for a district president to restrict or suspend
a retired pastor’s (emeritus) ministry in the LCMS…
for communing in a church not in fellowship with the
LCMS? [Question has been abbreviated in order to
focus on the substance of the question.]
Question 4: If the answer to question 3 is yes, then: Is it proper for
any district president or other elected officers of the
Synod and its districts to provide for monitoring and
disciplining members of the Synod [for]…attending
worship, communion, a wedding, and/or a funeral in a
non-LCMS church? [Question has been abbreviated in
order to focus on the substance of the question.]
Opinion: Because of the nature and relationship of the two questions, the commission hereby answers the questions together. The
constitutional requirements for maintaining membership are the
same for all members, whether active or emeritus. While the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not make explicit use of the
terminology “monitoring and disciplining members of the Synod,”
the responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision is clear in the Constitution and Bylaws. The following bylaw and constitutional provisions apply whether or not an individual member of the synod is
active or inactive (including “emeritus”).
Bylaw 2.13.2 states: “An individual member of the Synod may be
placed on restricted status by the district president who has ecclesiastical supervision of the member.” Bylaw 2.13.2.1 (a) states: “The
district president may take this action if information with respect
to such member provides a substantial basis to conclude that such
member (a) has engaged in conduct which could lead to expulsion
from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution…”
Bylaw 2.13.4 states: “When formal proceedings have been commenced against a member of the Synod (individual and congregation)
under the procedures set forth in Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17 which
may lead to expulsion from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution, the member shall have suspended status. If such member
was on restricted status at the commencement of formal proceedings,
the restricted status shall become suspended status.” Bylaw 2.13.4.1
states: “Suspended status shall continue until the formal proceedings
are completed favorably to the member or until membership is duly
terminated.”
Bylaws 2.14.1 and 2.14.1 (a) also apply in answering these questions:
2.14.1	Termination of membership in the Synod is a serious matter
involving both the doctrine and life of those to whom it has

2013 Convention Workbook