LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 29, 2003, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

4. If such a new “confessional statement” is permitted in the LCMS to define a particular
group with whom they will fellowship or refuse to fellowship, have they formed a synod
within the Synod?
5. If such a group with a confession that binds them to some and excludes others is permitted
in the Synod, how will Synod members and congregations be informed whether they want
to be in fellowship with this group or not? How will LCMS members know that they have
been “disfellowshiped” by other members who have formed a confessional group of their
own? If the Synod allows this group to organize its own synod or fellowship group, how
many more can the Synod allow to become organized?
6. If a congregation adopts the “confessional statement” in question, which excludes LCMS
members from their fellowship, is this in violation of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws
and 2001 Resolution 3-07A?
Opinion: Questions 2 through 4 should be referred to the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations. The Commission on Constitutional Matters is not responsible for interpreting the referred-to
“confessional statement” or for judging its theological content and implications. The following opinion is
an answer to the concerns raised especially in questions 1, 5, and 6 regarding the use of confessional
statements in addition to those formally adopted by the Synod and as a condition of membership or
fellowship in the Synod.
The conditions of membership in the Synod are contained in Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI
requires acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II of the Constitution. Bylaw 1.09 describes the
authority of the Synod, retained to its corporate self, to adopt doctrinal resolutions and statements that
seek to clarify the Synod’s corporate confession and understanding of doctrinal issues. Dissent from those
doctrinal resolutions and statements is governed by Bylaw 2.39 c.
The question is unclear as to whether the “confessional statement” proposed to be adopted by a member is
consistent with a doctrinal position of the Synod or is a doctrinal position that has not been addressed by
the Synod as a whole. If the “confessional statement” which is proposed were consistent with a doctrinal
position of the Synod, there would be no reason for its separate adoption by the individual member or
congregation. If the “confessional statement” appears to be contrary to a doctrinal position of the Synod,
the action of the member, whether individual or congregation, is governed by Bylaw 2.39 c. If the
“confessional statement” is intended to address an issue that has not yet been addressed by the adoption of
a doctrinal resolution or a statement on part of the Synod, the processes provided in the Constitution and
Bylaws and particularly Bylaw 1.09 govern the action.
Subscribing to or requiring a “confessional statement” in place of or in addition to the confessional
position of the Synod as set forth in Article II of its Constitution as a condition for fellowship with one
another in the Synod is a violation of the covenant relationship in the Synod (Article VI 1; Bylaw 1.03).
Members of the Synod are expected to subscribe only to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions.
The Synod requires that its member congregations accept the Synod’s confessional
standard. At the same time the congregation’s own standard must not go beyond the
Synod’s confessional standard. The best procedure would be to adapt Article II of the
Synod’s own Constitution to the congregation’s constitution (CCM Opinion 98-2135,
Review of “Guidelines for Constitution and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation”).

110