# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S257
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
this proposed request and/or motion of the Board of
Directors also in direct violation of Bylaw 3.3.5.5 (a) (2),
and possibly 3.9.2.2 (b), and even more so Article V of
the Articles of Incorporation? And (d) Can the Synod’s
Board of Directors restructure the Synod’s governance
without the approval of the Synod in convention?
Opinion: Again, the Commission on Constitutional Matters believes it would be unhelpful to the Synod to comment on such a
failed motion, the board majority having rejected the proposed restructuring.
Question 7: Bylaw 1.4.1 states: “The delegate convention of the
Synod is the legislative assembly that ultimately legislates policy, program, and financial direction to carry
on the Synod’s work on behalf of and in support of the
member congregations. It reserves to itself the right
to give directions to all officers and agencies of the
Synod.” (a) Is there a specific reason(s) that the Synod
is structured in such a manner with no individual officer
or board having “ultimate authority or control” and all
being accountable to the Synod in convention? (b) Does
the Synod’s Board of Directors have “sole authority” in
even “secular or legal matters” or should it still be subject to the opinions of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters and ultimately answerable to the convention
of the Synod? (c) What course of action should be
employed by the Synod if an officer and/or a board of
the Synod presumes, on its own, to rewrite the Synod’s
structure and governance? And (d) What would be a
more correct and appropriate constitutional procedure
if an officer or a board of the Synod wished to change
the Synod’s structure of governance?
Opinion: (a) It is not the authority or responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters to speculate as to why the Synod
has chosen to structure itself in the manner it has. (b) The Synod in
convention chooses its governance model and determines whether
or not the Synod’s Board of Directors should have “sole authority”
even in “secular or legal matters.” Under the Synod’s current governance model, the Board of Directors is to be subject to the opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters and ultimately
answerable to the Synod in convention. (c) No officer and/or board
of the Synod is authorized to rewrite the Synod’s structure and
governance. It remains the responsibility of the President, who has
supervision regarding the doctrine and administration of all officers
of the Synod, as well as all such who are employed by the Synod,
to assure that such actions are not taken. Actions taken by a board
or officer of the Synod are ultimately subject to the review of the
Synod in convention, which ultimately has the authority to declare
any such action taken beyond the authority of an officer or board
as null and of no fact. (d) Amendments to the Constitution of the
Synod may be made pursuant to Article XIV and the processes described therein. Amendments to the Bylaws may be made pursuant
to Chapter VII of the Bylaws and the processes described therein.
Adopted April 21–22, 2007
Clarification of Opinion 06-2477, “District Convention
Resolution re CCM ‘Guidelines’ ” (07-2487)
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been made aware
of confusion resulting from its Opinion 06-2477, “District Convention
Resolution re CCM Guidelines.’ ” In the opinion, the Commission
called attention to its statement in its Guidelines for Constitutions
and Bylaws of Lutheran Congregations, “A congregation’s confessional standard must not go beyond that of the Synod.” It also restated
an earlier commission opinion (August 2003 Opinion 03-2352) that

257

“individual members or congregational members of the Synod may
not add to or remove items from Article II [of the Synod’s Constitution]” and that “other confessional statements, confessions of faith,
or common confessions may in fact be correct interpretations of our
Lord’s teaching and may be used for a variety of purposes, but such
other confessions may not be used as a condition for acquiring and
holding membership in the Synod.” The Commission recognizes that
imprecise use of terminology has caused the confusion that has resulted from Opinion 06-2477 and therefore offers this clarification.
When a congregation becomes a member of the Synod and thereby
subscribes to the Synod’s Constitution, it also subscribes to the confessional basis of the Synod as articulated in the Synod’s Constitution,
Article II (see Constitution Art. V, “who confess and accept the confessional basis of Article II,” and Article VI [1], “Acceptance of the
confessional basis of Article II”). In Bylaw 1.6.1, the same is referred
to as the “confessional position of the Synod [as] set forth in Article
II of the Constitution, to which all who wish to be and remain members of the Synod shall subscribe.” In Bylaw 1.3.4, the same is again
referred to as the “confessional position of the Synod.” The intent of
Opinion 06-2477 was to reiterate from prior commission opinions
the important point that this confessional “basis” or “position” may
not be added to or subtracted from by a member congregation. Subscription to Article II of the Synod’s Constitution is a condition of
membership in the Synod.
If, therefore, a congregation wishes to restate this “confessional
basis” in its own Constitution, it should do so (as the Commission’s
guidelines suggest) by staying as close as possible to the language of
the Synod’s “Article II Confession,” so that its confessional basis is
demonstrated to be the same as that of the Synod. There is, however,
no essential need for the congregation to reiterate this confessional
basis, since this is already established by its membership in the Synod.
Congregations may and often wish to, however, include in their
official documents a confessional statement of their own, perhaps
using words like “inspired” and “inerrant” to emphasize important
aspects of their confession. This is appropriate so long as such statements, as well as all of the content of their Constitutions and Bylaws
“are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Confessions, and the
teachings and practices of the Synod” (Bylaws 2.2.1 [b]; 2.4.1 [b]).
Care should therefore be taken in congregational documents that terminology used properly differentiates between a confessional “basis”
paragraph which may be included and which mirrors the Synod’s Article II and confessional “statement” paragraphs that may be included
to emphasize certain aspects of the confession of the congregation
but must be in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Confessions,
and the teachings and practices of the Synod.
It is the responsibility of district constitution committees to review
constitutions and bylaws when a congregation initially applies for
membership (Bylaw 2.2.1) and when a congregation revises its official documents (Bylaw 2.2.1). The committees should pay careful
attention to terminology that is used, to differentiate between “confessional basis” paragraphs and “confessional statement” paragraphs,
and to advise congregations accordingly as part of their review process.
For its part, the Commission recognizes the need to revise its
Guidelines for Constitutions and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation as follows:
3.0 CONFESSIONAL BASIS OR STATEMENT
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod requires that its member
congregations accept the confessional basis of the Synod. Congregations do so when they become members of the Synod, which includes
subscription to the Synod’s Constitution (Constitution Art. V and VI
[1]; Bylaws 1.3.4 and 1.6.1). If a congregation chooses to reflect this

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 257

4/15/10 2:40 PM