At the 2010 Convention in Houston, there was a proposed resolution, Res. 8-30 “To Amend Article VI of the Constitution,” which would have changed the language of our Synod’s article on “Conditions of Membership.” In my opinion, those changes would have made the article much weaker. And so, as a delegate, I was totally opposed to that resolution.
I was not alone. The resolution itself was what was amended. By the end of the week it became Res. 8-30B “To Study Article VI of Synod’s Constitution.” Instead of amending the Synod’s “Conditions of Membership,” the resolution now called for a widespread, in-depth study of the same. I was totally in favor of this resolution. I thought this would be a good opportunity to explain and better understand why we have the conditions we do, and thereby build greater unity in our Synod. The resolution was adopted, and the study mandated.
That study is now beginning to take shape. The Synod has just introduced a bundle of resources designed to help in a study of Article VI, especially focusing on the condition that relates to “Church Fellowship.” See the story in the Reporter, “New ‘Church Fellowship’ website offers resources for major study”. The website that offers these resources is found at this link: “Church Fellowship: Resources on the Study of Article VI regarding Resolution 8-30B”.
Among the resources to be found at the website are these: Article VI of the Synod’s Constitution; writings from C. F. W. Walther, Kurt Marquart, and Herman Sasse; and A Reader of LCMS Church Fathers On Avoidance of Unionism and Syncretism.
Since we’ve been referring to Article VI, we should especially highlight the section that relates to church fellowship. The conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod include:
2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:
a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church;
b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession;
c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.
In addition to the resources currently at the “Church Fellowship” website, more will likely be added as the study goes along.
Associate Editor’s Note: Stay tuned to BJS as we work with these great resources on the site, highlighting them and possibly producing some study guides for them as well.
It is somewhat (or not) surprising that recent documents specifically dealing with Article VI of the Constitution were not included on the LCMS’s newly created Church Fellowship webpage.
For example, there is the recent CCM opinion, “Interpretation of Constitution Art. VI 2 b (11-2598),” in the CCM February 10–12, 2012, Minutes, Sect. 91.
There is also the 44-page, 110-footnoted, January, 2012, document, “Historical Background and Interpretation of Article VI.2 of the Constitution of The Lutheran—Church Missouri Synod (Draft),” in which Gerhard Bode explores in detail every phrase, word, and fraktur in the applicable section of the original 1847 Missouri Synod constitution:
The conditions of membership were moved from Article II to Article VI when the Synod reorganized its constitution in 1920.
Bode also provides some historical background and concerns about unionism and syncretism as well as numerous excerpts from the writings of C.F.W. Walther on unionism and syncretism. Regarding Article II.3, Bode stated:
Perhaps less (or not) surprising is the omission of Article VI-related theological documents from the ‘Kieschnick era’, especially:
1. Witness & Worship in Pluralistic America, (edited by John F. Johnson. St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 2003), which contains a collection of papers by Concordia Seminary faculty including:
“Christians and the Disestablishments of Religion in the United States,” Joel P. Okamoto
“Strategies for God-Talk in a Pluralistic Society,” Charles P. Arand
“The Challenges of American Civil Religion for the Church,” David L. Adams
“The Pastor as Religious and Civic Leader: Breaking with Quietism,” Richard H. Warneck
“No Other Gods,” Andrew H. Bartelt
“Proclamation, Intercession, and Praise in Mixed Company,” Paul R. Raabe
“Unionism and Syncretism in the LCMS Constitution: Historical Context and Interpretive Development,” William W. Schumacher
“‘What Am I Doing Here?’: The Semiotics of Participation in Public Gatherings,” Paul W. Robinson and James W. Voelz
“That God’s Kingdom May Advance with Power Throughout the World,” Robert A. Kolb
2. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations “February 12, 2010, Response to [a September 7, 2009] ‘Request for CTCR Opinion Concerning Continued Eligibility of an Inactive Emeritus Member Under Article VI of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’,” which explained its confusion about Article VI:
The CTCR’s referral to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (in Post #2 above) would be to the same CCM, whose documents, in the October 2 and October 21-22, 2002, Minutes (Sect. 63. Interpretation of Article VI 1 b of the Constitution (02-2278) and Sect., 71. Interpretation of Article VI 2 b (02-2278)), originally tossed the issue to the CTCR:
One other Article VI-related document strangely missing from the set of documents included in the LCMS Church Fellowship website is The Testimony of Rev. Wallace Schulz (given to the Dispute Resolution Panel at Newark, NJ, January 13-14, 2003), particularly the section, “Syncretistic worship as a type of witness to the pagan community versus the First Commandment” (p. 22ff).
“Associate Editor’s Note: Stay tuned to BJS as we work with these great resources on the site, highlighting them and possibly producing some study guides for them as well.”
Since the resources linked on the LCMS Church Fellowship webpage are chock-full of good Lutheran statements, that will be a lot of BJS highlighting, and study guides over the coming years.
As one example, in one of the documents posted on the LCMS Church Fellowship website, A Reader of LCMS Church Fathers (esp. C.F.W. Walther) On Avoidance of Unionism and Syncretism (trans. and complied by Rev. Joel R. Baseley), there is an article, “Reply to the Most Recent Defense of the Union” by C.F.W. Walther, taken from a series published in Der Lutheraner (Vol. 1 pp. 78f, 82f, 86f, 95f, 97f; Vol. 2, pp. 11f, 26f, 47f, 51f). Writing about a 67-page booklet, “A Word for the Good Cause of the Union. A Defense of the Evangelical Church Against the Attack of The Lutheran [Der Lutheraner] by E.L. Nollau, Ev. Pastor in Gravois, near St. Louis” Walther responds at one point (p.31):
Footnote 14 states:
Again, something we could have really used a few weeks ago…
Was this rushed out at the last minute then? Nothing for three years, then it comes out now, a few weeks too late.
The February 1, 2013, Letter from President Harrison on Newtown, CT did state:
Given this statement, the subsequent apologies for a debacle, and the recent Church Fellowship page added to the LCMS website, one might expect the final study to come out at or before the convention, along with some related overtures from the CCM and/or CTCR ‘clarifying’ Article VI. Given the CCM’s ruling in 2012, any such overtures should be examined closely with a scanning electron microscope.
In defense of the administration, they had forced on them the restructuring of the synod. There is lot more time than we know that had to be devoted to that in the last 2.5 years.
Also, necessity is the mother of invention and the cause of getting things done. I am just glad these things are coming out for study.