LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 6-13, 1989, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

152. Joint Worship (Ag. 1858) : A pastor from the Northwest District had requested a ruling on three
questions relative to the organization, conduct and participation in a joint ELCA/LCMS Eucharistic
service. He had asked these questions:
1. According to the Synod's Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions is it a violation of our
Synod's fellowship principles for a pastor of the Synod to act as chairman of a worship
committee of mixed LCMS and ELCA pastors and organize a closing Eucharist Worship for
a theological conference of mixed LCMS and ELCA clergy participants?
2. Further, is it a violation of our Synod's fellowship principles, in this same context, for an
LCMS rostered pastor to conduct such a Eucharist Worship wherein an open invitation is
made to ELCA clergy to commune?
3. If, in the same context, ELCA clergy conduct the Eucharist, may or may not LCMS pastors
openly and properly commune at the table alongside ELCA clergy members?
The circumstances giving rise to the questions involved an event at Holden Village for which
organization was well on its way. It had not yet been decided whether LCMS or ELCA clergy would
conduct the Eucharist but in any case clergy of both synods would be invited to commune.
The Commission decided to reply that based on the information which had been provided the actions
described were violations, especially of Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. In response to questions
1 and 2, it is the opinion of the Commission that actions described are a violation of the Synod's
fellowship principles. Consequently, in response to question 3, LCMS clergy may not openly and
properly commune at the table alongside ELCA clergy members.
The Commission wishes to make it clear that its response is based on the information provided. It is also
concerned that if the matter has not been discussed openly and thoroughly with the district president who
is responsible for doctrinal supervision in the district, that this matter be attended to immediately.
153. Faculty Member Due Process (Ag. 1859) : The Commission received an inquiry regarding the
removal of a long time tenured faculty member when the causes for removal fall within subparagraphs 1,
2, 3 and 4 of Section 6.43 c. It was noted that 6.45 a deals with these four subsections while Section 6.45
b deals with subsections 5 and 6. The question which was raised was whether it would be necessary to
follow completely Section 6.47 if the cause for removal was found within subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
Section 6.43 c or whether Section 6.47 was setting forth a procedure that must only be followed if the
cause for removal is found under subsections 5 and 6 of Section 6.43 c.
In response, the Commission replied that 6.47 applies with respect to all aspects of 6.43 c, that is, causes
1-6. If 6.47 were only to apply to 6.43 causes 5 and 6, there would be no point to specify in 6.47 c, “. . .
and if the charge involves conduct unbecoming a Christian or advocacy of false doctrine . . . " That
obviously implies that 6.47 is indicating the procedures for exercising board supervision in relation to all
causes for which a faculty member may be removed (6.43) with special procedures also available to a
complainant in relation to causes 5 and 6 of 6.43. This seems to be supported also by 6.47 d, “. . . and if
the charge is of a theological nature . . . “
As to why 6.45 is divided into Sections a and b, perhaps the reason is that identified above, namely, to put
the board on notice that in relation to causes 5 and 6, special things are suggested, such as securing an
opinion of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.