Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2002 › Page 3

LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 21-22, 2002, Page 3

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28

Source: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (files.lcms.org)

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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 review 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 paragraph 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 indicate that what follows in
the subparagraphs of paragraph 2 are examples 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 congregations or of congregations of mixed confession.
The example in subparagraph b does not address directly the question asked of the
Commission, 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 congregation of mixed confession or
whether a minister of a heterodox congregation or a congregation of mixed confession
participates in the services 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 Constitution nor the Bylaws of the Synod
provide any exception to this principle (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 confession is an act of unionism and syncretism. The specific questions are then:
1) What constitutes "taking part"? 2) What constitutes a "service"? 3) What constitutes a "heterodox
congregation"? 4) What constitutes a "congregation of mixed confession"? The answer to these questions
relates to a minister of religion's commitment to witness publicly and privately to the one and only Gospel
set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Among the functions of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations is to "provide guidance to the Synod in matters of theology and church relations" (Bylaw 3.925
b). Thus this question should be directed to that commission.
72. Rights and Responsibilities of President of the Synod Under Bylaw 3.101 (02-2282A, B)
Two pastors of the Synod in separate letters to the Commission dated July 15, 2002, requested a ruling
from the Commission regarding the Bylaw 3.101 distinction between the President’s ecclesiastical and
administrative powers and duties as pertaining to his announced intention to call up for review a decision
of the investigating officer in a current dispute case.
Question:

May the President of the Synod use Bylaw 3.101 to justify the review and possible
overturning of the decision that was made by the member of the Praesidium under the
provisions of Bylaw 2.27 c?

51