# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1962_S188
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

COMMITTEE 6 187

Resolved, That the Board for Young People’s Work
of the Synod be reminded of its serious responsibility
to guard against such corruption of the faith and also
that it be instructed to work more earnestly and seri-
ously with the Walther League, so that it fulfills its
purpose to serve the Savior as it builds up the faith of
our young people, rather than to undermine the teach-
ings of our Synod and the faith of our youth.

Pau. LEHENBAUER, Deshler, Ohio

ITTEE 6
[601-A] COMM

Supplement to Report of Committee
on Constitutional Matters (re Resolution 9)

1. The most controversial resolution presented to
and adopted by the San Francisco convention in 1959
was, without doubt, Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3
(Proceedings, 1959, pp. 191, 192). This was evident while
the convention was in session. It became obvious also
in several ways after the convention had adjourned; for
example, for the first time, if memory serves well, the
Committee on Constitutional Matters was asked by
a District (English District) to rule on the constitu-
tionality of an adopted resolution.

2. The request of the English District seemed to us
to be based, at least in part, on the fact that Resolution 9
of Floor Committee 3 had not been given to the con-
gregations for general study prior to the convention.
On this basis our committee formulated an opinion
which stated that it could not declare this resolution
unconstitutional on this technical ground, because Reso-
lution 9 had been formulated by a floor committee of
the convention as an answer to several overtures and it
was therefore impossible to present it to the congre-
gations prior to the convention. Our committee ad-
mittedly did not pass on the question of the constitu-
tionality of Resolution 9 because there seemed to be
no compelling reason to do so at that time. For one
thing, the President and the Vice-Presidents of the
Synod had promised an amplification and clarification of
the resolution, and protocol indicated that this clarifica-
tion should be published before any opinion would be
expressed on the constitutionality of Resolution 9; again,
it was obvious that the Cleveland convention would be
asked for a ruling on the constitutionality of Resolu-
tion 9, either by a vote to rescind or to reaffirm this
resolution.

3. However, it is now common knowledge that a con-
tinuing and ever-increasing concern over this issue has
been expressed by many members of the Synod. As
a result a request has again been addressed to our com-
mittee to render an opinion on the real issue without
further delay. It seems to us as of now, that the doc-
trinal issues confronting the church will be discussed
much more dispassionately if the uncertainty of the
status of Resolution 9 could be removed. This consid-
eration prompts us to submit the following supple-
mental opinion to the section of our report captioned

“Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3.” (P. 227, Reports
and Memorials)

A. The right of the Synod to add to Article II of
our Constitution (“Confession”) by following the pre-
scribed method of amending the constitution (Article
XIV) must be recognized and accepted.

B. The Brief Statement, which has become the focal
point of attention in this present controversy, is not
under attack as such; it has been praised highly by
many who wish Resolution 9 rescinded and also by those
who agree with Resolution 9. In expressing an opinion
as to the constitutionality of Resolution 9, we are in
no way underestimating or minimizing the value of the
Brief Statement or of any other doctrinal statement ac-
cepted by the Synod, nor are we questioning their
Scriptural correctness. This is not the province of the
Committee on Constitutional Matters.

C. By including paragraph “B” of Resolution 9 of
Floor Committee 3 (‘That Synod’s pastors, teachers,
and professors are held to teach and act in harmony
with such statements”) in the resolution, the resolution,
in our opinion, was given the effect of amending Ar-
ticle II of our constitution. Furthermore, paragraph “B”
limits the binding force of doctrinal statements to pas-
tors, teachers, and professors and says nothing about its
binding force on member congregations of the Synod.

D. We call particular attention to the fact that the
Synod and every member of the Synod accepts without
reservation the confessional standard as set forth in
Article II of the Synod’s constitution; these are the con-
ditions for acquiring and holding membership in the
Synod (Article VI). Furthermore, members who act
contrary to these Confessions may be expelled from the
Synod (Article XIII). The Confessions mentioned in
Article II are the only confessions to which pastors and
teachers bind themselves in taking their ordination
and installation vows or to which a congregation binds
itself when it becomes a member of the Synod. It neces-
sarily follows that in order to make any other confes-
sional or doctrinal statement binding upon the mem-
bers of the Synod, the statement must be made a part
of the constitution. Accordingly, Resolution 9 of Floor
Committee 3 of the San Francisco convention, in our
opinion, should have been treated as an amendment to
the constitution rather than as a measure that could
be adopted by a simple majority vote.

E. Therefore, in our opinion, Resolution 9 of Floor
Committee 3 of the San Francisco convention is un-
constitutional, not because of any inherent defect in
the wording or the content of any doctrinal statement
adopted by the Synod as a public doctrine but because
Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 was not submitted
as an amendment to the constitution in accordance with
the provisions of Article XIV.

THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
A. W. MuELter, Chairman

W. C. Brxner, Secretary

HERBERT F. KUENNE

GustTavE KUHLMANN