# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2010_S285
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
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.

It is the opinion of the commission that the proposed draft does
satisfy the concerns previously articulated by the commission, amending Bylaw 3.8.3.7 in a manner that is consistent with the Handbook
of the Synod, so long as care is also taken, perhaps delegated to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters as it prepares the 2010 edition
of the Handbook, to locate and make changes to any other bylaws with
pronouns referring to the office of college or university president that
are not gender-neutral (as in Bylaw 3.8.3.7.1 [b]).
Adopted February 26–28, 2010
Questions re District Overtures to Synod Conventions
(10-2577)
With a February 27, 2010 e-mailed letter, the President of the
Synod submitted a series of questions related to overtures and memorials received for consideration by the 2010 convention. After
reviewing pertinent constitutional and bylaw passages, he requested
the following opinions.
Question 1: May a district of the Synod adopt a resolution rejecting
a resolution of the Synod? What would be the effect of
such a resolution?
Opinion: A district may not adopt a resolution rejecting a resolution
of the Synod, and any attempt to do so should be considered null
and void. This issue has been touched on in a number of prior CCM
opinions. In Opinion 00-2212, the CCM addressed the question,
“Since a district of the Synod is in reality ‘Synod in that place,’
may a district take official action to file an expression of dissent
to a doctrine or practice of the Synod? Members of the Synod
have the privilege of doing so, but a district is not a member of the
Synod.” The commission responded as follows:
Bylaw 2.39 c [2007 Bylaw section 1.8] describes the procedure for
dissent to doctrinal resolutions of the Synod by members of the Synod.
Districts are not members of the Synod but are divisions of the Synod,
“the geographical boundaries of which are determined by the Synod and
altered by it according to circumstances” (Article XII 1). “The Synod
establishes districts in order more effectively to achieve its [objectives]
and carry on its activities” (Bylaw 4.01 [2007 Bylaw 4.1.1]). As such,
districts “as component parts of the Synod are obligated to carry out
the resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.05 f [2007 Bylaw 1.3.6]). An
official action by a district, therefore, to file an expression of dissent to
the Synod regarding a doctrine taught and practiced by the Synod is out
of order and, therefore, null and void.

This issue was most recently and even more directly addressed in
CCM Opinion 09-2556, which discussed the nature of districts and
indicated, in part:
With respect to districts as agencies of the Synod, districts hold a
special relationship to the Synod. As indicated in Bylaw 4.1.1, “The
Synod is not merely an advisory body in relation to a district, but establishes districts in order more effectively to achieve its objectives and
carry on its activities.” Bylaw 4.1.1.1 is even more explicit as it relates
to districts: “A district is the Synod itself performing the functions of the
Synod. Resolutions of the Synod are binding upon the districts.” Bylaw
1.3.6 makes clear a district’s responsibility over against resolutions of
the Synod: “Districts and circuits as component parts of the Synod are
obligated to carry out resolutions of the Synod and are structures for

285

congregations to review decisions of the Synod, to motivate one another
to action, and to shape and suggest new directions. …’’
To the extent that a resolution of the Synod establishes an initiative
directing action or participation by an agency of the Synod, whether a
district or other agency, it is not the prerogative of the agency to determine whether it wants to participate. Rather, it is required as part of
its covenant with the Synod to do so. The refusal of an agency of the
Synod, including a district, to follow or accept the resolutions of the
Synod is without authority and should be considered null and void.

The Bylaws of the Synod are also the primary bylaws of a district
(Bylaw 4.1.1.2), and the district president under Bylaw 3.1.6.2 also
has a duty to refuse consideration of an overture in violation of the
Bylaws of the Synod:
3.1.6.2 (c) The President of the Synod shall determine if any overture contains information which is materially in error or contains any
apparent misrepresentations of truth or of character. He shall not approve inclusion of any such overture in the Convention Workbook and
shall refer any such overture to the district president who has ecclesiastical supervision over the entity submitting the overture for action.
If any unpublished overture or resolution is found to be materially in
error or contains a misrepresentation of truth or of character, it shall be
withdrawn from convention consideration and referred by the President
of the Synod to the appropriate district president for action.

The President of the Synod under Article XI B of the Constitution has the duty to see to it that district presidents refuse to allow
attempts to engage in such improper actions and the duty to admonish
a failure to do so.
Question 2: May a district of the Synod adopt a resolution redirecting its congregations not to abide by, honor, or uphold
a resolution of the Synod? What would be the effect of
such a resolution?
Opinion: For the same reasons, a district is prohibited from adopting a resolution directing or even suggesting that congregations
should not abide by, honor, or uphold a resolution of the Synod,
and any such resolution is null and void.
Question 3: May a district of the Synod adopt a resolution directing
its president not to abide by, honor, or uphold a resolution of the Synod? What would be the effect of such a
resolution?
Opinion: For the same reasons, a district is prohibited from considering, much less adopting, a resolution directing or even suggesting
that a district president or anyone else should not abide by, honor,
or uphold a resolution of the Synod, and any such resolution is null
and void.
Question 4: Is there a distinction between an overture submitted by
a district that seeks to revise or rescind a resolution of
the Synod and an overture that rejects a resolution of the
Synod? If so, what is the distinction?
Opinion: Yes, there is such a distinction. While a district may not
reject a resolution of the Synod, it may always request that the
Synod in convention reconsider and review a prior resolution. That
right was reaffirmed by the first “resolved” of 2001 Res. 7-22A:
“Resolved, That the Synod assembled in convention affirm the right
of a district delegate convention to submit overtures, including recommendations to reconsider and review doctrinal resolutions of
the Synod, and to make other requests to the Synod assembled in
convention.”
Question 5: Would an overture submitted to a convention of the
Synod in the form of a resolution adopted by a convention of a district that rejects a resolution previously
adopted by a convention of the Synod be considered
to be “materially in error” (Bylaw 3.1.6.2 [c])? Would
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 285

4/15/10 2:40 PM