# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S267
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Opinion: The goal of the entire dispute resolution process is reconciliation. Any action which might assist in that process should be
considered by the panel. It is the responsibility of each participant
in the process to maintain and assure the integrity of the process.
As the panel works toward a final decision, it should consider and
resolve any issue raised pertaining to the process of dispute resolution.
Adopted April 4–5, 2008
Definition of Term: “Operating Board” (08-2515)
In a March 28, 2008 memorandum, the Commission on Structure requested an opinion from the Commission on Constitutional
Matters regarding the use of the term “operating board” in Bylaw
6.2.1. At the commission’s April 2008 meeting, it was agreed that
this question should be submitted to the Board of Directors and to
legal counsel for their input (Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b]) prior to a response
from the commission.
The Secretary reported on research that he provided to the Board
of Directors, including a history of the board’s involvement in the
recognition of service organizations over the past 30 years and a history of terminology associated with the recognition process, a report
adopted by the board as its own statement of record. He also reported
that legal counsel responded positively to the results of the research.
After discussion of the results of the research, the commission
determined its response to the question submitted by the Commission on Structure.
Question: How is the use of the term “operating board” in Bylaw
6.2.1 to be understood and to whom does it apply?
Opinion: The term “operating board” occurred for the first time
in the 1995 Handbook of the Synod in place of the term “program
board” in the 1992 Handbook. The 1995 Handbook, after listing the
Synod’s Board of Directors and the boards of the synodwide corporate entities, listed as “Other Operating Boards” those boards that
essentially are today the program boards of the Synod. The 1995
Handbook for the first time also used the term “operating board” in
Bylaw 14.03 d, what is today Bylaw 6.2.1.
The 1998 Handbook reverted back to the use of the term “Program Boards” as the title for these boards, but it also retained the
term “operating board” in Bylaw 14.03 d (2007 Bylaw 6.2.1). It is
the opinion of the commission that the term “operating board” as it
appears today in Bylaw 6.2.1 is therefore to be applied accordingly.
The term “operating board” is to be understood to apply to the Board
of Directors and the boards of the synodwide corporate entities (including Concordia Plan Services) and to the program boards. Today’s
synodwide corporate entities and program boards are listed in current
Bylaw 1.2.1, paragraphs (o) and (u).
Adopted June 6–7, 2008
District Constitution Committee Responsibilities (08-2516)
In a letter dated April 8, 2008, a pastor member of the Synod serving as a member of a district’s constitution committee asked whether
a committee has the right to mandate that a congregation include a
clause in its constitution requiring it to submit revisions to the district
committee.
Question: Can a [district board of directors] and its [constitution
committee] mandate that the congregation include a
clause in its constitution that requires the [congregation]
to submit its revisions to the [constitution committee]?
Opinion: The judgment and responsibility to determine what is
acceptable in a congregation’s constitution and bylaws has been
given by the Synod only to a district board of directors, upon recommendation of the district president and upon the advice of the

267

district constitution committee. With respect to retaining membership in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Bylaw 2.4.1 (c)
states:
(c) Upon advice of the constitution committee and recommendation
by the district president, the district board of directors shall determine if
the changes are acceptable to the Synod.

The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not mandate a
clause in a congregation’s constitution and/or bylaws that requires
the congregation to submit its revisions to the constitution committee.
However, the document, “Guidelines for Constitutions and Bylaws
of Lutheran Congregations” (which is just that: “guidelines”), does
suggest wording for the congregation’s constitution and bylaws for
the sake of unity and harmony, for benefiting the congregation in its
responsibilities and in its relationship to the Synod, and for the sake
of avoiding any potential future conflict or potential legal difficulties.
When determining what changes are acceptable concerning the
provisions in a congregation’s constitution, a district board of directors must follow no more than the criteria set forth in the Bylaws of
the Synod, which state:
The district president shall refer such to the district’s constitution
committee for review to ascertain that the provisions are in harmony
with Holy Scripture, the Confessions, and the teachings and practices
of the Synod (Bylaw 2.4.1 [b]).
It should be noted that even if the clause in question is not in the
congregation’s constitution, a member congregation is required to
submit a revised or new constitution and/or bylaws for continued
membership in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. The Bylaws
of the Synod clearly state in Bylaw 2.4.1:
A congregation desiring to retain membership in The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod shall continue to have a constitution and bylaws approved by the Synod.
(a) A member congregation which revises its constitution or
bylaws or adopts a new constitution or bylaws shall, as a
condition to continued eligibility as a member of the Synod,
submit such revised or new constitution and/or bylaws to the
district president.

Adopted June 6–7, 2008

Congregations’ Right to Suspend Bylaws (08-2519)
As a result of the proposed congregation transformation process
that is currently underway in some districts and is being considered
by several more, a number of district presidents, in an e-mailed June
2, 2008 letter following their participation in a training session, raised
a series of questions regarding some of the recommendations proposed as part of the revitalization process. Included with the questions was the following paragraph providing background regarding
said process:
The revitalization process recommends that congregations suspend
those portions of their bylaws that address election, officers, and governance structures. All other bylaws and, of course, the Constitution and/
or Articles of Incorporation remain intact. The intent is to put the pastor,
not a committee, in a position of responsibility and authority for the
congregation to pursue a new vision for mission and ministry.

Also included with the questions were the following comments
from the questioners:
Since part of the Synod’s Ablaze! initiative includes the revitalization of 2,000 congregations, the Transforming Congregations Network
was put together. It stems from a process begun by Dwight Marable,
President of Missions International. It comes primarily from a Baptist
background and has a different polity behind it, enabling it to perhaps
do things the LCMS is not able to do, or at least may not be able to do
as easily. The intent of the above paragraph is to enable a congregation
to implement an “accountable leadership model” of governance for an

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 267

4/15/10 2:40 PM