# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S129
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
position of the Synod and ultimately of Article II itself. This does
not mean that doctrinal resolutions and statements, including those
adopted prior to 1977, are equal to, or that members of the Synod
are required to subscribe to them in addition to, the Scriptures and
Confessions. Rather, they are adopted because they are in harmony
with Scripture and the Confessions (Bylaw 1.6.2 [b] [7]).
Question 2: Is the public rejection of “A Statement of Scriptural and
Confessional Principles” (1973) a violation of Articles
II and VI 1 of Synod’s Constitution?
Opinion: Since “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” (1973) was adopted by the Synod (1973 Res. 3-01) “to be
Scriptural and in accord with the Lutheran Confessions,” it expresses the doctrinal position of the Synod. It derives its doctrinal
authority not from the vote of the convention but from the Word of
God, which it sets forth. Public contradiction to “A Statement of
Scriptural and Confessional Principles” is, therefore, in essence a
violation of Scripture and thus Articles II and VI 1 of the Synod’s
Constitution.
With the adoption of “A Statement,” the Synod required “that
those who disagree with these formulations in part or in whole be
held to present their objections formally to those who have immediate
supervision of their doctrine” (1971 Res 5-24). Any dissent from the
stated theological position of the Synod is to be brought to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in accord with Bylaw 1.8.
Question 3: Does the filing of a dissent from such theological
positions of the Synod prevent action from being commenced against such a member of the Synod, which may
result in removal of such a member of the Synod?
Opinion: While the filing of dissent does not constitute a case for
removal, the member is required to teach and practice in accord
with Synod’s stated confessional position during the dissent process. If the member fails to honor and uphold the stated confessional position of Synod during the dissent process, the member
becomes subject to disciplinary action due both to the violation of
the doctrinal position of Synod and the offense against the other
members of Synod created by such failure (Constitution Art. XIII
1). In such case it is incumbent upon the ecclesiastical supervisor of
the member to exercise disciplinary action against the member who
fails to teach and act within Synod’s stated confessional position,
whether apart from or during the dissent process (Bylaws 2.14.4;
2.15.4; 2.16.4).
The dissent process only allows a person to bring forth a contrary
view to the stated position of Synod which the dissenter believes is
supported by the Word of God (Bylaw 1.8.2). Those expressing dissent “are expected as part of the life together within the fellowship of
the Synod to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw
1.8.1) and “to honor and uphold publicly the [doctrinal] statement[s]
as the position of the Synod …” (Bylaw 1.6.2 [b] [10]). The CTCR
and ultimately the Synod in convention shall consider the dissent and
shall render final judgment as to whether or not the doctrinal statement is in accord with the Word of God. While the dissent is being
considered by the CTCR or the Synod in convention, “the consciences
of others, as well as the collective will of the Synod, shall also be respected” by the dissenter (Bylaw 1.8.2). The individual member does
not have the freedom to decide what of Synod’s stated confessional
position is to be honored and upheld and what is not. Once the dissent
process has been concluded and if the stated confessional position of
the Synod is not changed by the Synod in convention, the member
is bound to teach and practice in accord with the stated confessional
position of the Synod. If the member expressing dissent cannot or
will not teach and practice according to the confessional position of
the Synod, the only recourse left to the member is to resign from the

129

Synod. Continuing to teach and practice in conflict with the position
of Synod subjects the member to ecclesiastical discipline and finally
expulsion from Synod.
Adopted June 13–14, 2014
CUS Presidential Election Process (13-2695)
The chairman of the board of regents of one of the universities
of the Concordia University System (CUS) addressed two questions
to the commission regarding the process provided by the Bylaws of
the Synod for the election of university presidents. The questions
pertained to Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 (e), particularly to the status of the list
of candidates returned to the board of regents by the prior-approval
panel (Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 [d]).
The commission observes that the 2010 Synod convention significantly changed the process for electing presidents of CUS colleges and universities, providing additional directives for that process
(Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2). In the resolution that adopted this new procedure
(2010 Res. 5-06A), the rationale for the change stated that allowing a
board of regents to cast the votes for a college or university president
was more in line with the responsibilities that belong to a board of
regents. At the same time, the rationale indicated that the new process
maintained a legitimate level of participation by the Synod, accomplished by the addition to the process of the prior-approval panel with
the authority to remove names from the final “short list” of candidates
prepared and submitted by the board of regents.
In this new process, the board of regents, using a search committee, determines the needs of the institution and the characteristics desired in a new president. The search committee also develops
written criteria which it uses to screen the list of nominees who have
consented to serve if elected. These same criteria are then used by the
board of regents to guide the presidential election.
Utilizing the work of the search committee, the board of regents
itself then develops a short list of at least five names from the list of
all nominees who consented to serve if elected. This short list is then
presented to the prior-approval panel consisting of the President of
the Synod, the chair of the Board of Directors of Concordia University System, and the president of the district in which the college or
university is located.
The prior-approval panel, by a two-thirds vote, may choose to
remove names from the short list, which is then returned to the board
of regents. If the returned list has less than two names, the election
process is terminated and the board of regents must decide whether
it will develop a new short list from the current list of nominees who
have consented to serve, or whether it will open the nominations
process to generate additional nominations before developing a new
short list.
The questions now before the commission pertain to that point
in the process when the short list is returned to the board of regents
by the prior-approval panel (Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 [d] [3]) and the board
of regents then elects the new president of the college or university
(Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 [e]).
Question 1: When the board of regents creates the ballot of candidates to use on the day of the presidential election, does
the board of regents have the authority not to include
candidates that received prior approval?
Opinion: No. Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 (e) directs the board of regents to
use the slate that was returned by the prior-approval panel and contains no provision for altering the list.
Question 2: Does the board of regents have the authority to stop
the process of filling the office of president if it is their
determination that stopping would be in the best interest
of the institution?
2016 Convention Workbook