# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S258
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

258

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

confessional basis in its own constitution, it is recommended that Article
II of the Synod’s Constitution be adopted for inclusion in congregations’
constitutions. A congregation’s confessional basis must not go beyond
that of the Synod.
Example:
This congregation accepts without reservation:
The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written
Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice.
3.2 All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as
a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of
God, to wit: the three Ecumenical Creeds (the Apostles’ Creed,
the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed), the Unaltered Augsburg
Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Large Catechism of Luther, the Small Catechism
of Luther, and the Formula of Concord.
3.1

If a congregation chooses to do so, it may also include confessional statements, even when it does not restate its confessional basis.
Should a congregation do so, it is the responsibility of the district
constitution committee to assure that such confessional statements
are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Confessions, and the
teachings and practices of the Synod.
Adopted April 21–22, 2007
Gender of University Provost (07-2489)
In a letter dated February 26, 2007, a chairman of a board of
regents of a university of the Synod, after quoting several bylaws
of the Synod, concluded that the provost of the school must be male
given that position’s responsibility to serve as acting and/or interim
president when the president is unable to serve. He asked the Commission for its opinion, stating his intention to provide the response
of the Commission to the Provost Search Committee of the school.
Opinion: In a March 16, 1984 opinion, the Commission on Constitutional Matters stated:
The Synod has stated that a woman is not to exercise authority over
man, particularly in spiritual matters. It is true that the president of an institution may delegate certain responsibilities to staff members. One of
these responsibilities that may be delegated is that of spiritual leadership
of the institution. However, for the reason that the power to delegate is
just that and is not a release of the responsibility, and ultimate responsibility for supervision is that of the person delegating the responsibility,
the Commission rules that on the basis of present bylaws and resolutions
of the Synod, a woman may not serve as president since the president is
to serve as the spiritual academic and administrative head of the institution according to Bylaw 6.15. The board of regents may not delegate
this ultimate responsibility either since the bylaws specifically assign it
to the president of the institution.

When asked to reconsider this opinion, the Commission on April
6, 1984, reaffirmed its previous decision, stating “that when Bylaw
6.15 designates the president as the ‘spiritual head’ of the institution,
service in the position of president by a woman would be in conflict
with the position of the Synod as stated in Resolution 2-17 of the 1969
Denver convention, and reaffirmed in conventions which followed.”
This opinion was reaffirmed by a later commission in a September
14, 1999, opinion (99-2160), which stated in part:
It is the opinion of the Commission that until the Synod clearly indicates that the term, “spiritual head,” does not involve the president of
the institution in the distinctive functions of the pastoral office and/or
exercising authority over men in spiritual matters, its decision is consistent with the position adopted by previous conventions.
In response to the current question, the commission therefore answers that because current Bylaw 6.12 retains the content and terminology of the Bylaw 6.15 referred to in the 1984 opinion, including
the requirement that a president of an institution serve as its “spiritual

head,” the 1984 ruling of the Commission stands because it was never
overruled by a synodical convention.

Noting these earlier commission opinions, and noting that a president of an educational institution continues to “serve as the spiritual,
academic, and administrative head of the institution” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7),
remains “responsible for the provision of spiritual care and nurture for
every student” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7 [h]), and “shall carefully watch over
the spiritual welfare … of the students and in general exercise such
Christian discipline, instruction, and supervision as may be expected
at a Christian educational institution” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7 [i]), the Commission concludes that it continues to be necessary for a university
president to be male. And given the fact that the job description of the
position in question (provost) requires that person to serve as acting
and/or interim president when the president is unable to serve, the
Commission further concludes that this position (provost) must also
be held by a male, since the responsibilities of the position remain
with the position, even were they to be delegated to another person
for a period of time.
The Commission notes that the above response pertains to the
matter as it stands, with the provost serving as “acting or interim
president” during a vacancy in the office of president. It is conceivable
that the responsibilities of a provost during a vacancy in the office
of president could be defined/described in such manner as would
avoid using the terms “acting or interim president,” instead specifying certain functions of the office of president to be carried out by the
provost while excluding those particular functions of the office that
exercise authority over men in spiritual matters and assigning them
to a male member of the administration or faculty during a vacancy.
It may also be helpful, given developments in the Synod pertaining
to the service of women, to request counsel also from the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations.
Adopted April 21–22, 2007
Calling a Special Convention of the Synod (07-2490)
In a letter dated February 16, 2007, a district president asked a
series of questions related to the calling of a special convention of
the Synod, especially in light of Constitution Article VIII and Bylaw
section 3.1.
Question 1: Is “the Synod” in convention authorized by the
Constitution to call a special session?
Opinion: Yes. Constitution Article VIII B 1 states: “The Synod
may under circumstances call a special session if two-thirds of the
voting representatives so decide” (emphasis added). In referring to
the regular meetings of the Synod, Article VIII A 1 uses the same
term: “The Synod convenes every three years for its regular meeting” (emphasis added). And Bylaw 3.1.1, in setting forth the provisions for a national convention, states:
The national convention of the Synod … is the principal legislative
assembly, which amends the Constitution and Bylaws, considers and
takes action on reports and overtures, and handles appropriate appeals.
It establishes general positions and policies of the Synod, provides overall program direction and priorities, and evaluates all such positions,
programs, policies, directions, and priorities in order to provide responsible service for and on behalf of its members … ” (emphasis added).

Question 2: Is there any definition of the “circumstances” necessary
for calling a special session of the Synod?
Opinion: No. The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent
with respect to the definition of “circumstances” in this Article VIII
B 1. Thus, the Synod in convention determines the conditions that
affect the calling of a special session.
Question 3: Is “a special session” of the Synod the same as or different from a convention of the Synod?

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 258

4/15/10 2:40 PM