LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 9, 1984, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

1) Is it a violation of the Constitution of Synod and a violation of both the Bylaws of the Synod
and the District for the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod to participate as a part of the Lutheran Council for Campus Ministry, northern
California, northern Nevada, and Hawaii (abbreviated LCCM), an association of
denominations with whom The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod is not in altar and pulpit
fellowship?
2) Is it a violation of the Constitution of Synod and a violation of both the Bylaws of the Synod
and the District for a clergyman of a denomination not in fellowship with The Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod to represent The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on a campus and
for a congregation of a denomination not in fellowship with The Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod to represent the Synod on a campus?
3

Is it a violation of the Constitution of Synod and a violation of both the Bylaws of the Synod
and the District for District to be in an association (sic: council) that indicates that there is
pulpit and altar fellowship existed between the groups that are in partnership; when in fact
there is not?

In response, the Commission replied that it had ruled previously on similar questions in 1974, and that its
conclusions had been ratified by the Anaheim convention in 1975 in Resolution 2-06. These rulings are
still valid and should serve to answer the questions posed as they are applied to the Lutheran Council for
Campus Ministry in northern California, northern Nevada, and Hawaii. The following points are included
in the Commission ruling and in Resolution 2-06 of the 1975 convention:
Point #1 affirms the District's responsibility for its campus ministry program.
Point #2 affirms that Synod shall retain within its own jurisdiction " everything" administered by
or for the Synod.
Point #3 rules that joint worship communities with church groups with which the Synod has not
as yet established fellowship are improper.
Point #4 rules that "dual membership" is improper, as is ecclesiastical supervision by another
church body.
Point #5 and point #6 speak to the administration of campus ministry, which according to point 2,
must always remain within the jurisdiction of the Synod (District).
Purely administrative matters on the local campus ministry scene (comity arrangements, sharing of
facilities, publicity, etc.) may be planned locally, provided that these do not involve joint ministry of
Word and Sacrament. In addition, the synodical convention in Dallas (1977) adopted a "Position and
Directional Statement for Campus Ministry." This statement is supplementary to Resolution 2-06 of the
Anaheim convention. The final sentence of part one, page three, reads: "At the same time it is concerned
that LCMS Districts participating in inter-Lutheran agencies observe all synodically-adopted resolutions
and policies for campus ministry."
The position statement referred to calls for "coordinative and consultative' planning of campus ministry
with all Lutherans at all levels--local, District, regional, and national. The form where and how
coordination and consultation happens must always be in keeping with synodical policy. The Board for
Mission Services has interpreted the phrase "consultation and coordination" to mean “the mutual sharing
of current and future plans for various campus ministries, the deliberative avoidance of duplication, and