# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S192
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

192

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

i.e., suspend), among others, “at his command to promote and
maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the
Synod.”
CCM Op. 15-2750 responded to the question: “Since Bylaw 1.2.1 (i) states that ecclesiastical supervision rests primarily
with ‘the President of Synod and district presidents,’ does the
President of the Synod have the responsibility, when necessary,
to discipline members of the Synod as a district president disciplines members of the Synod?” It concluded appropriately,
based on the bylaws as they existed at the time, and unaware of
the constitutional issue that led to Op. 16-2791, that “the President of the Synod exercises his authority to supervise doctrine
and practice in the districts of the Synod as the Constitution
(Art. XII 8) and Bylaws (2.14, etc.) specify, namely, through
his supervision of district presidents. ‘In the districts of the
Synod, [the President of the Synod] shall carry out his ecclesiastical duties through the district’s president’” (Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1
[b], emphasis added).” This would indeed remain the ordinary
case—as would the fact that the President of the Synod remains
supervisor of the district presidents and would be able, should
the situation warrant, to exercise the other means given him to
discipline a district president who is not properly carrying out
the ecclesiastical supervisory duty incumbent upon his office.
Op. 15-2750’s further conclusions that the President of
the Synod could not, under any circumstances, carry out, in
the stead of the district president, Bylaw section 2.14 to expel
a member under district supervision were a correct analysis of
the bylaws at the time—which seemed, given that “expulsion
shall be executed only after following such procedure as shall
be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod” (Const. Art. XIII 2)—
a reasonable basis on which to answer the question. Different
conclusions have been drawn from the constitutional material
in Op. 16-2791, just as different conclusions would be drawn
from the bylaws to be adopted under Res. 12-14—in the specific
case of matters dealing with doctrine and practice, where there
is a formal accuser who has appealed for action, and where the
district president has failed or (in the view of the chief ecclesiastical supervisor of the Synod, inappropriately) declined to
suspend.
Question 2: Does the Synod President have empowerment
by the Synod Constitution to have ecclesiastical
supervision, suspension and/or expulsion authority of a member of the Synod?
Opinion: This question has been sufficiently addressed by
CCM Op. 16-2791 and the above.
Question 3: Does the Synod President have empowerment by
the Synod Bylaws or resolutions to have ecclesiastical supervision and/or expulsion of a member of
the Synod?
Opinion: CCM Op. 16-2791 and 2016 Res. 12-14 have clearly
directed the Secretary of the Synod to draft, and the Board
of Directors to adopt, bylaws elaborating this constitutional
authority of the President, at least in the narrow circumstances
indicated—namely, in a matter involving doctrine and practice,
when there is a formal accuser who has appealed for action
because the district president has failed to act or declined
to suspend. The commission, in thoroughly reviewing Op.
16-2791 with regard to the stated challenges, finds no reason
to withdraw, rescind, or modify its opinion, and therefore no
reason that the Secretary of the Synod or the Board of Direc2019 Convention Workbook

tors should proceed otherwise than to adopt the bylaws drafted
(by the Secretary, in extensive consultation with the Council of
Presidents), and already reviewed, as to content and consistency with Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions, especially
2016 Res. 12-14, and as to language, by the Commissions on
Constitutional Matters and Handbook.
The Secretary of the Synod was directed to share the minutes of this phone meeting immediately with the Board of Directors and Council of Presidents of the Synod.
Adopted May 12, 2017

Relation of Const. Art. VII 1 and Const. Art.
XIII 3 (17-2836)
On June 28, a Hearing Panel of the Synod, under Bylaw
2.14.7.8 [k], requested an opinion of the commission consisting
of three questions regarding Const. Art. VII 1 and Const. Art.
XIII 3:
1.

Are the Bylaws resolutions?

2.

What was the intent and meaning of inexpedient, as is
expressed in Const. Art. VII 1?

3.

In a decision to suspend a congregation for failure
to depose a suspended [sic] pastor, whose will has
greater authority, a member congregation or Synod
through its representative?

Background: Const. Art. VII 1, under the heading “Relation of the Synod to Its Members,” reads as follows:
In its relation to its members the Synod is not an
ecclesiastical government exercising legislative
or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it
is but an advisory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the
individual congregation is of binding force if it
is not in accordance with the Word of God or if
it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned.
The meaning and history of interpretation of Const. Art.
VII 1 is a broad topic, on which much time and effort has been,
and could profitably be, expended. For the sake of a timely response, this opinion will confine itself principally to the relation
of Const. Art. VII 1 to the constitutional provision referred to
in Question 3, namely, Const. Art. XIII 3. The latter reads as
follows:
If the member expelled is a pastor or teacher in
a congregation of the Synod, such congregation,
unless it has already done so, is held to depose
him from office and to deal with him in accordance with the Word of God, notwithstanding
an appeal. If it persistently refuses to do so, the
respective district is to deal with it. If all negotiations and admonitions fail of their purpose,
such congregation forfeits its membership in the
Synod.
In the following, the commission has revised the questions
for clarity and accuracy, as indicated by the bracketed phrases.
Question 1: Are [the provisions of the Synod Constitution and
of] the Bylaws resolutions? [That is, are they to be
treated as within the right granted a congregation