# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1983_S181
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

4 stated that those remarks were ordered to be included by the
& Chair’s judgment, and I asked to do so on general consent.
= There was no objection. You can vote on this if you like as an

assembly to underscore that it was the assembly’s wishes
rather than the Chair’s order. However, by parliamentary law
when a Chair rules and the assembly does not object, it is also
the assembly’s decision. Rather than debate the point end-
lessly, may I put that question to you? Do you wish to have Dr.
Nafzger’s remarks included verbatim in the fine print at the
end of the motion? If you do, please raise your hands and say
aye. If you do not, please raise your hands and say no. The ayes
have it and the motion is adopted.”)

To Reaffirm Essential
Congregational Polity of the Synod

RESOLUTION 5-10A

Report 4-03 (CW, pp. 126—127); Overtures 5-
72A—5-75 (CW, pp. 231—233)

WHEREAS, A number of congregations have offered
overtures addressing the question of how best to
reaffirm congregational relationships within The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; and

WHEREAS, An accurate perception of the situation
recognizes that the questions now before the convention
arise out of a conflict between ecclesiastical concepts
and civil law concepts used in the adjudication by courts
of disputes between or within churches; and

WHEREAS, The word “hierarchical” is repugnant to
Missouri Synod Lutherans because etymologically it
refers to “rule by the priesthood”; and

WHEREAS, Civil courts have given the word “hier-
archical” a meaning that is different from the one given
in theology, to distinguish between forms of church
governments which are entirely congregational and
those forms which involve associational relationships
and commitments (and are therefore designated as
having at least “hierarchical” dimensions); and

WHEREAS, In past instances the Synod has utilized
the legal nomenclature “hierarchical” in legal proceed-
ings in order to preserve to member congregations and
others who associate. together within the Synod the
right to resolve disputes freely in accordance with
established synodical procedures; and

WHEREAS, There are currently two methods by which
courts can constitutionally decide church disputes, the
“neutral principles of law” method (where the deeds and
other documents that relate to the issues will be applied
literally, with no application of underlying motivation
or intention as to matters that are or may be religious in
nature), and the “deference” method (where, at least as
to issues which necessarily involve theology or doctrine,
the courts will defer to the decision of an appropriate
body within the church organization if the church
organization has a structure and procedure that it holds
out as capable of use in resolving disputes); and

WHEREAS, The nature of the polity of a church body
in the eyes of civil law is determined by an examination
of the church’s formal structure and operations; there-

- fore be it

STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTION

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri_
Synod reaffirms that its synodical polity is ‘essentially
and principally congregational in nature and therefore
is ordinarily referred to as a congregationa polity; and
be it further Ca

Resolved, That the Synod acknowledges that under
the definition and application of the word “hierarchical”
in civil law there are aspects in the relationships within
the Synod between and among congregations (eg,,
Article II, Confession; the calling of certified and
endorsed pastors only; agreements to abide by adjudi-
catory procedures and their final determinations) which
under civil law may imply, express, or evidence what
the courts regard as hierarchical dimensions; and be it
further .

Resolved, That, believing that Scripture (1 Cor. 6)
requires that we make every effort to avoid disputes or to
resolve them internally when they do arise, of the two
constitutional methods for resolving church disputes by
the civil courts, the Synod favors the “neutral principles
of law” method whenever it can be applied, and that
when neutral principles cannot be applied to resolve a
particular controversy, the Synod declares that itis able
and willing to resolve disputes internally; and be it
further

Resolved, That while we believe that the courts
should recognize that there are church polities other
than “congregational” and “hierarchical,” unless and
until courts do so, the present status of case law compels
us to use certain legal terminology; and be it finally

Resolved, That with the previously outlined explana-
tion, the Synod declares itself as satisfied with the
procedures heretofore followed by the Synod in
instances involving these issues.

Action: Adopted (11).

(Mr. Philip Draheim, legal counsel for the Synod, read a
lengthy prepared statement before the committee introduced
the resolution. During the discussion the delegates declined a
motion to table the resolution, but agreed by common consent
to strike “etc.” at the end of the parenthetical statement
included in the second resolve. After agreeing to cease debate
by a standing vote of 653 to 290, Res. 5-10A was adopted. The
convention decided that both Mr. Draheim’s statement, as well
as remarks made by Dr. Herbert Mueller toward the conclusion
of the matter, should be published in the Proceedings. They
follow immediately below.)

Statement by Legal Counsel Phil Draheim
on Res. 5-10A

The following comments with respect to this resolution,
which are made at the request of the Floor Committee, are not
made out of conviction that there is a necessary right result.
Rather, it is important that this convention reach a conclusion
as to whether the word “hierarchical” can be used in describing
the Synod’s polity at any time and under any circumstances,
and that the convention decide the question on facts and
applicable principles, as devoid as possible from emotion and
rhetorical argument. ;

The Synod has not previously spoken clearly on the matters
presented to you in Res. 5-10A. Do not be confused by brief
editorials or long treatises suggesting that the Synod has, from
Walther on, made its position clear. While there can be no doubt
about the relationship of the Synod as an entity to congrega-
tions, as to other relationships within the Synod and the
conflicts and disputes which can develop, especially within