# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S61
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNOD REPORTS
persons involved are treated fairly and with Christian compassion.
Our Lord’s call to love one another and care for one another must
prevail. The necessity of providing financial support and benefits
during a time of transition must also be addressed.
Adopted April 25, 2009
6. CTCR Response to 2007 Resolution 8-10
Background:

2007 Res. 8-10 resolved that the CTCR, in consultation with the
Committee on Structure (COS) and the Council of Presidents (COP),
consider 11 overtures (8-47–57) submitted to the 2007 Convention
regarding CCM Opinions 02-2296, 02-2309, 02-2320 and report its
findings to the 2010 convention. The central point of concern regarding these three opinions was the judgment by the CCM that
The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not allow or contemplate the expulsion of a member of the Synod on the basis of an action
taken with the full knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. (CCM Opinion 02-2296)

One of the overtures (8-47, from the Northern Illinois District)
asked for clarification of the interpretation of Opinion 02-2309.
Another (8-48, from the South Wisconsin District), asked Synod
either to reaffirm or to decline Opinions 02-2296 and 02-2309. A third
(8-50, from a Nebraska congregation), urged individual responsibility for behavior without specific mention of the CCM opinions. The
remaining eight overtures, from seven districts and various congregations, circuit forums, and pastors’ conferences, sought to overrule
one or more of the opinions in question.
Several clarifying points regarding these opinions were raised
by the “whereas” portions of Res. 8-10. First, the resolution distinguishes between “scriptural” and constitutional concerns with the
opinions, noting that the CCM is charged with interpreting the constitution and bylaws of the Synod, not its theological position, and
that all the objections to the opinions are theological or scriptural
and none is constitutional. Additionally, the resolution points out that
significant bylaw revisions occurred and new policies were implemented by the COP after the CCM opinions (the changes in bylaws
and policies occurred as a result of and following the 2004 Synod convention, while the opinions all date from 2003). Res. 8-10 goes on
to note that these changes “may impact” the discussion of the opinions in question.
The CTCR’s Task:

The CTCR has consulted with the COS and has received confirmation that it has found the CTCR’s response included here to be
“quite adequate.” The CTCR also shared its response with the COP
and received no objections or suggestions for modification.
The task before the CTCR seems to be two-fold. First, we need
to identify the theological issues raised by the 11 overtures to the
2007 convention. Second, we must consider how the changes to the
bylaws and COP policies impact or “address” the identified theological issues.
Identification of theological issues.

The theological issues raised by the overtures may be summarized as follows:
1. That the CCM opinions encourage partiality or “respecting of
persons” in judgment (citing Deut. 1:17; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25;
James 2:1, 9).
2. That the opinions make the Word of God secondary to human
traditions (making human commandments into church doctrine and encouraging obedience to men rather than God; citing

61

Mark 7:7, 13; Acts 5:29).
3. That the opinions repeal a divinely given obligation (citing AC
27, 24 and AAC 28, 17–21).
4. That the opinions grant “immunity from expulsion” for an
action that may eventually be judged to be worthy of expulsion
for anyone who has secured the permission of an ecclesiastical supervisor.
5. That because the opinions allow an ecclesiastical supervisor to
provide approval to a member in private, the supervisor would
not necessarily be held accountable for his actions.
The overtures in question do not provide extensive theological
arguments for the issues they raise, which makes it difficult fully to
understand the concerns of those who submitted the overtures. For
example, references to partiality or “respecting of persons” are not
elucidated further in order to explain the contention that the CCM
opinions encourage such partiality. One would have to assume that
the concern is that someone in an office of supervision could potentially show favoritism or partiality and grant approval to a course
of official action by someone he favors or withhold approval from
someone he dislikes. In such a case, the first (favored) person would
have no fear of discipline for his action while the second (disfavored)
individual could be immediately subject to discipline for his action.
The second and third concerns seem clearer. Both the idea of making the Word of God secondary to human traditions and the idea of
repealing divinely given obligations seemingly flow from the judgment that the CCM opinions make Synod policy more important than
the Bible. Human (Synod) traditions are viewed as having been elevated to higher status than the Bible because an individual who is
eventually found to have transgressed biblical teaching or practice
is nevertheless exempt from church discipline because he obeyed
a human authority (his ecclesiastical supervisor). Additionally, the
overtures contend that an exemption from discipline transgresses the
Bible’s obligation to exercise responsible admonition and church discipline when a Christian errs. In both cases, there seems also to be a
concern that the opinions may allow a supervisor the authority to set
aside biblical teaching in favor of his own judgment.
The fourth item of concern, the perception that “immunity from
expulsion” is granted by the CCM opinions is less clear. On the one
hand, is the suggestion that something akin to a rule of “no double
jeopardy” is inherent in the CCM opinions? “Immunity” would seem
to suggest a continuing freedom from discipline for the issue under
question. On the other hand, perhaps the concern refers only to a particular instance for which the member of Synod cannot be expelled.
The fifth item of concern seems clear. The supposition of the overtures is that a supervisor may permit a course of action that is not
publicly known or that cannot be addressed by his supervisor or, in the
case of the Synod President, by the convention, in a timely manner.
Consideration of how bylaw and policy changes address the
theological issues.

The 2004 convention of the LCMS changed the bylaw procedures
for dispute resolution and ecclesiastical supervision in several significant ways. Those procedures have remained following the 2007
convention without significant change. We will address the two areas
separately. First, however, it should go without saying that no action
by any human authority, ecclesial or otherwise, can exempt an individual from personal responsibility toward God and His judgment.
Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws are humanly devised organizational
tools to enable a group of individual pastors and congregations—its
members—to operate together as effectively as possible. They are
far from infallible and are always subject to revision. Synods (like
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 61

4/15/10 2:38 PM