COP Guidelines on Joint Worship from The Reporter, May 2, 1983
Edited by Rev. Jack Cascione

 

In our most recent releases Reclaim News sent out the letter written by Dr. Arleigh Lutz, President of the Council of District Presidents (COP) and President of the North Wisconsin District, to the other 34 LCMS District Presidents. We also sent our reply in view of the May 2, 1983, guidelines on joint worship adopted by the COP which were published in the LCMS Reporter. It appears the COP no longer agrees with its own guidelines on worship. How quickly things change. Reclaim News has been asked to send out the 1983 document in its entirety.

FROM: THE REPORTER
Vol. 9, No. 17
May 2, 1983

THE MISSOURI SYNOD AND JOINT WORSHIP

At the February meeting of the Council of Presidents, Synod president Ralph A. Bohlmann presented a brief paper outlining the Synod's position on joint worship. The need for such a paper stemmed from recognition by the council of the need for guidance regarding participation in inter-Lutheran events, particularly during this 500th anniversary year of Martin Luther's birth, and prior to the completion of a proposed church-wide study of inter-Christian relationships.

Previously in that meeting, the council had supported a long-term study process presented by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for developing guidelines for all inter-Christian relationships. Such guidelines were requested by the 1981 synodical convention. Stages of the study process include development of case studies through widespread regional and District pastoral conferences before guidelines would be distributed for study in early 1985.

The council endorsed the principles in Dr. Bohlmann's paper and agreed to use it as counsel in the church; it is presented here for that purpose.

Commenting on the paper, Dr. Bohlmann said, "Participation in joint worship services is often a cause of confusion or discord; no other question creates more problems for us. Our handling of it requires great churchmanship on the part of all - particularly now as we await the completion of our church-wide study and the development of new guidelines. Theses I and II - and presumably V - are the official Missouri Synod position, and should therefore be honored and upheld by all. Theses III and IV are an exploratory effort to apply our traditional criteria to some current questions in a responsible manner. Taken together, the theses uphold our Synod's position on joint worship services while offering possible ways for meaningful involvement with other Christians."

THE QUESTION:

How does the LCMS position on joint worship apply to our participation in various inter-Lutheran events?... Its importance:

  1. For continued faithfulness to God's Truth
  2. For LCMS solidarity
  3. For maintaining the bond of peace within Lutheranism
  4. For clarity in broader ecumenical relationships

HISTORICAL FACTORS:

  1. Unionism implied doctrinal compromise or indifference
  2. Scriptural injunctions to avoid, separate, and beware
  3. Fear of causing offense
  4. Concerning with witness given by all joint actions
  5. Focus on the use of the means of grace
  6. Distinction between fellowship in sacred matters and cooperation in external matters
  7. Differences in application to various forms of worship 8. Efforts to manifest unity inadequate?

THESES FOR DISCUSSION:

I. The members of the Synod (that is, pastors, teachers, and congregations) are expected to observe the positions and policies of the Synod. Deliberate failure to do so breaks our covenant, creates discord, and often causes offense.

II. It is the position of the Synod that its members are free to engage in joint worship only with the pastors, teachers, and congregations of the Synod, its partner churches, and church bodies with whom the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship. (See Constitution, Article VI, which renounces unionism and syncretism of every description, such as taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession. Several synodical resolutions have also spoken against holding joint worship services with those with whom we have not established pulpit and altar fellowship: see, e.g., 1965 Resolution 2-16. 1967 Resolution 2-18 and 2-19, and 1969 Resolution 3-18.)

III. Members of the Synod may conduct, co-sponsor, or participate jointly with other Christians in certain public events (such as celebrations, gatherings, rallies, convocations, exhibition, pageants, concerts, colloquia, or conferences), provided the following principles are observed:

  1. The event is not a joint worship service. This would mean that any clergy participants would not be vested and that program components would not include either sermon or sacrament;
  2. The event does not imply that doctrinal unity exists among the sponsors or participants;
  3. The purpose of the event is fully consistent with the position, policies, and objectives of the Synod;
  4. Program components should be consistent with the inter-Lutheran, inter-Christian, inter-religious, or civic nature of the event, as the case may be;
  5. Participation in the event does not compromise or weaken the witness of the Synod in any respect;
  6. Permission to conduct, cosponsor, or participate in the event has been granted by the responsible synodical official (namely District presidents for events within their Districts, and the synodical president for regional, national, or international events).

IV. Members of the Synod may find it particularly desirable to conduct, co-sponsor or participate in such public events with other Lutherans for purposes such as the following:

  1. Commemoration of a significant event in our common Lutheran history, such as the birth of Luther, the beginning of the Reformation, or the adoption of our confessional documents;
  2. Thanksgiving for the doctrinal heritage of Lutheranism;
  3. Education of participants in one or more aspects of Lutheran history or doctrine, or in a subject of special interest and importance to all participating Lutheran church bodies;
  4. Exchange of information and viewpoints on issues that divide Lutherans from each other and/or from other Christians;
  5. Prayer for greater doctrinal unity on the basis of God's Word and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to better understand and love each other;
  6. Encouragement of appropriate cooperative efforts (in externis).

V. Members of the Synod will make every effort to honor and uphold the positions and policies of the Synod (responsible commitment), to respect and trust each other's judgements in matters where the Synod has no corporate position (responsible freedom), and to straighten and expand the solidarity and the confessional witness of the Synod.

POSSIBLE THESES DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

  1. (Thesis 1): Are our synodical procedures for adopting statements, expressing dissent, and seeking change (e.g., Bylaws 1:03, c. 7-10. 1.19 e) adequate? Are they effective? If not, what changes are needed?
  2. (Thesis 1): How can we achieve greater clarity and consensus in determining which corporate decisions a congregation may regard as inexpedient (ungeeignet)? Does congregational autonomy in such cases extend to a congregation's pastors and teachers?
  3. (Thesis II): Do we need to distinguish between various forms of joint worship? If so, why and on what basis?
  4. (Thesis II): We have applied the same limitations to the official participation of others in our services, and, ordinarily, to our official participation in the services of others. What criteria should govern any exceptions to this policy?
  5. (Thesis II): Does the same principle apply to individual laymen? If not, why not? Have we adequately prepared our laymen to make responsible decisions in such matters?
  6. (Thesis III): How do we measure the potential witness value, for good or bad, of such events?
  7. (Thesis III.d.): Is it valid to assume that program components may to some extent reflect the measure of doctrinal consensus of the participants?
  8. (Thesis III.f): Is this proviso consistent with the authority presently granted to synodical officials?
  9. (Thesis IV): Are there other valid reasons for such inter-Lutheran events? Can we reasonably expect other Lutherans, as well as our own members, to understand a distinction between inter-Lutheran events and inter-Lutheran worship? Granted that this distinction may be somewhat artificial in certain respects, does it nevertheless make a valid point in terms of our witness by symbolizing the priority we give to prior doctrinal agreements?
  10. (Thesis V): Is it proper to give such a high priority to the impact of our actions on our own synodical fellowship?

Posted May 7, 2002