# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S215
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Ecclesial matters
the basis of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval
of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor” (Opinion 02-2296;
02-2320—2004 Convention Workbook, p. 345) and that even “[i]f
an act is in fact contrary to Article XIII of the Constitution, the member who acted cannot be charged since he or she acted according to
the advice of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor” (Opinion 02-2309,
2004 Convention Workbook, p. 352) The CCM drew this inference
from various provisions in the Constitution of the Synod that treat
ecclesiastical supervision. It stated that “the Synod, having designated
to its members the individuals who will provide to them supervision
and counsel, is itself responsible for the accuracy and content of such
supervision and counsel. Having promised supervision and counsel,
the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of its member who, when performing his/her official duties,
follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the Synod” (2004 Convention Workbook, p. 352).
While any CCM opinion is “binding on the question decided
unless and until it is overruled by a convention of the Synod” (Bylaw
3.9.2.2 [c]), there has been significant disagreement with the abovementioned CCM opinions, as shown already in overtures to the 2004
Synod convention (see 2004 Convention Workbook, pp. 305–309).
By 2007, eight of the Synod’s Districts (Central Illinois, Minnesota
South, Montana, Nebraska, North Wisconsin, South Dakota, Southern
Illinois, as well as Missouri) and other entities submitted overtures
to the convention calling for it to overrule one or more of these opinions (Ov. 8–50 to 8–57, 2007 Convention Workbook, pp. 277–279).
In 2007, the Synod took no action to overrule the CCM opinions in
question on constitutional grounds. It referred the pertinent overtures
to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for theological study and report to the 2010 Synod convention (Res. 8-10, 2007
Convention Proceedings, p. 166). Nonetheless, a substantive case
can be made from the Synod’s Constitution to urge the 2010 Synod
convention to overrule these CCM opinions. Such substantive constitutional rationale follows:
1. The CCM has created the possibility that the Synod could
be precluded from action against one of its members who is
indeed acting contrary to the conditions of membership in the
Synod as stated in Constitution Art. VI. Thereby in effect the
CCM has amended Article XIII of the Constitution, which
says that such members shall be expelled after previous futile
admonition. The CCM says that such members shall not be
expelled if they have followed the advice of their ecclesiastical
supervisors.
2. With its binding opinion that members of the Synod cannot be
charged if they violate the Constitution by acting according
to the advice of their ecclesiastical supervisors, the CCM has
granted district presidents and other ecclesiastical supervisors a
new power. These ecclesiastical supervisors now have the right
to provide a measure of impunity for those who violate the
Constitution! No constitution is being treated as a constitution
if it may be so violated.
3. Moreover, the Constitution of the Synod states, “The officers
of the Synod must assume only such rights as have been
expressly conferred upon them by the Synod” (Constitution,
Art. XI A 1). The Synod has not expressly conferred upon any
of its officers the right to provide anyone immunity from being
charged or expelled from the Synod. The CCM’s argument
in Opinion 02-2309 is an inference. The CCM’s inferential
argument, however, must yield to the Synod’s explicit words in
Constitution Art. XI A 1.

215

(It should be noted that in addition to the officers of the Synod
listed by position in Constitution Art. X A, the CCM has opined—and
it has not been overruled in its opinion—that district presidents, too,
are officers of the Synod [see the CCM’s Feb. 21, 1975 opinion, 1975
Convention Workbook, p. 487]. If it should be claimed that district
presidents are not “specified in the Bylaws” as officers of the Synod
[Constitution, Art. X A 6] and that Article XI A 1 therefore does not
apply to them, the question must be asked: Does the Synod grant
more rights to officers who are not specified in the Constitution and
Bylaws than it grants to those whose positions are specified there?)
The Missouri District has cautioned, “A confessionally based
Synod cannot endure for long if its members cease to be held responsible for the words and actions by which they confess their faith” (Res.
2-03, 2006 Missouri District Convention Proceedings, p. 35; re-titled
and printed as Overture 8-54, 2007 Synod Convention Workbook, p.
278–279). The Synod’s Constitution holds members of the Synod
responsible. There are substantive constitutional arguments to overrule the CCM opinions at issue. Having made three such arguments
in the numbered paragraphs just above, the Carrollton Circuit Forum
submits the following resolution to the Missouri District in the hope
that the district will adopt it for submission to the Synod in convention. Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod overrule the CCM opinions referenced
by numbers 02-2296, 02-2320, and 02-2309.
Missouri District;
Zion, Moberly, MO
7-14

To Ask the Synod to Overrule CCM Opinions
Rationale
The Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) has
opined 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” (Opinions 02-2296, 02-2320; 2004
Convention Workbook, p. 345) and even that “[i]f an act is in fact
contrary to Article XIII of the Constitution, the member who acted
cannot be charged since he or she acted according to the advice of his
or her ecclesiastical supervisor.” The CCM drew this inference from
various provisions in the Constitution that treat ecclesiastical supervision. It stated that “the Synod, having designated to its members
the individuals who will provide to them supervision and counsel, is
itself responsible for the accuracy and content of such supervision
and counsel. Having promised supervision and counsel, the Synod
is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of
its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows
the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by
the Synod” (Opinion 02-2309; 2004 Convention Workbook, p. 352).
While any CCM opinion is “binding on the question unless and
until it is overruled by a convention of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [c]),
there has been significant disagreement with the above-mentioned
CCM opinions, as shown already in overtures to the 2004 convention
(Convention Workbook, pp. 305–9). By the 2007 convention, eight
of the Synod’s districts (Central Illinois, Minnesota South, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, North Wisconsin, South Dakota, Southern
Illinois) and other entities submitted overtures calling on the Synod to
overrule one or more of these opinions (Ov. 8-50 to 8-57, Convention
Workbook, pp. 277–79). The convention took no action to overrule
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 215

4/15/10 2:39 PM