# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S119
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

RESOLUTIONS 119

formation on estimated cost thereof on an annual basis or
on a project basis, as the case may be.

Action: Adopted as amended (13).

(Amendment: Para. g originally called for 1 week rather
than 2 weeks.)

To Retain Broader Base for Board
of Directors Membership
RESOLUTION 5-20

Overture 5-70U (URO, pp. 60—61)

Wuereas, The Commission on Constitutional Matters
has issued an opinion clarifying and interpreting Hand-
book 2.71, “Membership”; and

Whereas, It is advisable to retain the broader base
of representation on the Board of Directors of the
Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That Overture 5.70U be declined.

Action: Referred to Council of Presidents for action

(16).

To Clarify Appeals Procedure re Instructors
RESOLUTION 5-21

Report 5-01, IV, C (CW, pp. 225—226)

Wuereas, The report of the Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters calls attention to an oversight in Bylaw
6.83; therefore be it

Resolved, That Bylaw 6.83 be amended to read:

... If the Board for Higher Education concurs in the find-
ings, it shall make necessary recommendations to the Dis-
trict President, who is to proceed according to Sections
5.31 ff., with the provision, however, that in the event of
a suspension the case shall be submitted to the synodical
Board of Appeals.

Action: Adopted (13).

To Decline Request for Referendum
as Unconstitutional
RESOLUTION 5-22

Overtures 3-45 to 3-83, 5-04 (CW, pp. 109—125, 229); 3-
282U to 3-284U, 3-304U, 3-324U, 3-325U, 3-381U, 5-71U
(URO, pp. 13—14, 19—20, 25, 46, 61)

OPINION REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF A REFERENDUM

The chairman of the convention floor committee on
Church Relations has requested an opinion on the consti-
tutionality of a congregational referendum on the question
of fellowship with The American Lutheran Church.

The commission believes that the question really is:
Does the Constitution of The Lutheran Church — Missouri
Synod permit the delegates who are elected to represent
the congregations of the Synod to transfer to those congre-
gations the responsibility to decide questions which are
properly presented to the convention for decision? The
commission is aware that fellowship may be only one of
many issues that some might prefer to have referred to the
congregations for decision.

It is the opinion of the commission that the question
must be answered in the negative. To transfer responsi-
bility for making a decision on fellowship or any other ques-
tion is inconsistent with the type of polity set forth in the
Constitution and under which the Synod has operated for

generations. This polity is one of representative govern-
ment which calls for full and free discussion of issues in
a deliberative assembly and then imposes responsibility on
each delegate to make a decision. The delegate may not
even be bound by instructions given to him by his constit-
uency.

Not only does the Constitution make no provision for
a referendum, but, on the contrary, many provisions of the
Constitution and Bylaws give clear indication that the
polity is one of representative government. A majority vote
at the convention itself controls (Article VIII, C). Articles
VIII and IX give additional evidence that the government
of the Synod is a representative government and not a gov-
ernment by referendum. Article XII, Sections 10, 14, 15, re-
quire that even at the District level the decisions must be
made by representatives. See also the following Bylaws
which express and implement this polity: 1.21; 1.27; 1.51;
1.53; 1.55; 1.59; 3.17.

To argue that a referendum on the fellowship question
should be permitted because a certain type of referendum
is indeed provided for when the Constitution is to be
amended is beside the point. There is an essential differ-
ence between changing the basic law (the Constitution)
under which the congregations have agreed to govern them-
selves as a Synod and deciding a course of action on a given
issue. The two situations are not even parallel, much less
identical. Furthermore, a specific provision does not estab-
lish a general rule; in fact, a specific provision is often nec-
essary to provide for an exception to a general rule. The
commission holds that this is the case in the procedures set
forth in Article XIV for amending the Constitution. Nor
are the provisions for an emergency decision between con-
ventions (Article XI, B, 9) germane to the question under
consideration, since no emergency is involved.

The conclusion of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters is that a referendum is permissible only after the Con-
stitution has been amended to allow it. It should be clearly
understood that such an amendment would involve a sub-
stantial change in the polity of the Synod but that the
Synod has the right to make such a change if it so desires.

COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
HERBERT KuENNE, Chairman

GERHARDT S, JERSILD

ELMER LUESSENHOP

GEorGE H. SOMMERMEYER

HERBERT MUELLER, Secretary

Unanimously adopted June 6, 1969

Wuereas, A referendum by congregations on matters
of church relations is contrary to the Constitution of
the Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That the above-mentioned overtures be
declined.

Action: Adopted (16).

To Reiterate in Bylaws that Member
Congregations Must Be Served
by Members of the Synod
RESOLUTION 5-23

Overtures 5-05 (CW, p.229); 5-61U, 5-73U (URO, pp.
57—58, 62)

Preamble

One of the very purposes of a synodical fellowship
is to provide guidance and help in the exercise of a con-
gregation’s right to call a pastor, and one of the very
reasons why a synod exists is to set standards for the
parish pastorate so that the individual congregation
may be assured that the man whom it calls is qualified
to serve as its parish pastor (Charter, Art. II b; Consti-
tution, Article III 3). To this end The Lutheran Church