LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 10–12, 2012, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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. 1
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. 2

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 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?
1

In studying this issue and in preparation for this opinion, the commission requested that Dr. Gerhard Bode, historian and
professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, prepare a research study paper on the issue. Dr. Bode’s study, “Historical
Background and Interpretation of Article VI 2 of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” was received by
the commission in January 2012 and is available on the commission’s Web page: http://www.lcms.org/ccm/.
2
Dr. Jacob A. O. Preus, “President’s Address,” 1981 LCMS Convention Proceedings, pp. 65–66.

237