# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S195
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but an advisory body.” Were
the Synod an ecclesiastical government (Kirchenobrigkeit) with
legislative or coercive powers, when it determined that a pastor
should not be pastor, it could itself remove him from office, or
command with force of law that such be done. Synod is not
an ecclesiastical government, but advises (albeit in the strongest
possible terms) a congregation whose pastor has been removed
from membership in the Synod that such a man is no longer
suitable to be pastor—that the only appropriate course of action, now, is to “depose him from office and to deal with him
in accordance with the Word of God.” Such advice is inherent
in the “evangelical supervision, counsel and care” and “protection” (Const. Art. III 8, 9) that are fundamental objectives of
the Synod. When Synod gives such advice it is doing what the
congregations, including the one in question, have formed it to
do, and the provision of such advice, however forceful, cannot
be called an exercise of “legislative or coercive powers.” It is an
aspect of the ecclesiastical supervision Synod exists to provide.
It is an advisory Synod giving critically important advice.
The congregation may decide to depose or not to depose.
However, the congregations of the Synod have explicitly declared in the Constitution establishing their synodical union
(Const. Art. XIII 3) that the congregation that ignores Synod’s
advice in such a matter—continuing to be served by a pastor
who has been (for cause and by due process—see Const. Art.
XIII 1–2, VI, II) expelled from the Synod, and refusing to “deal
with him according to the Word of God”—in so doing, forfeits
its membership in the Synod.
It is self-evident that Const. Art. XIII 3 presumes a situation in which the congregation finds removing its pastor to be
“inexpedient,” in the sense that it will not be persuaded to do so—
as in such a case “all negotiations and admonitions have failed
of their purpose.” If Const. Art. VII 1 were intended to excuse
such a congregation from removal from the Synod, Const. Art.
XIII 3 would be rendered meaningless. As we have seen above,
however, Const. Art. VII 1’s “right of expediency” does not apply to the Constitution of the Synod. Manifestly Synod has the
right, on behalf of all its congregations, to remove a member,
including a congregation, that fails to meet the constitutional
standards of membership (Const. Art. II, VI, XIII). When Synod, by its constitutional and bylaw mechanisms, removes such a
wayward member congregation, it is not “imposing something
on the congregation” or exercising “legislative or coercive powers” relative to a congregation’s “right of self-government.” It is
simply acknowledging that this congregation no longer walks
with Synod, but goes its own way.
There is thus no question, as it was put to the commission,
“whose will has greater authority,” but a distinction must be
drawn: The congregation may, in the end, ignore Synod’s advice and do as it wishes—the congregation’s individual will may
there prevail (but let God’s will be done among us on earth).
Self-evidently, however, such a stance is incompatible with continued membership in the Synod—and on that point Synod’s
collective will prevails. Nothing in Const. Art. VII 1 allows the
will of the individual congregation to trump the collective will
of all the congregations of the Synod, as expressed in Const.
Art. XIII, including Const. Art. XIII 3, regarding standards for
membership in the Synod and the expulsion of members that
do not meet them. To borrow from the 1944 report cited earlier,

195

“Otherwise [the Synod] and affiliation therewith would serve no
real purpose.”
Adopted July 10, 2017

Question Regarding a Congregation
Disaffiliating from a District (17-2856)
A district president of the Synod posed the following situation and questions to the commission: A congregation of the
Synod requested its district board of directors to approve its
transfer to another district under Bylaw 4.1.1.4. The board of
directors has determined not to approve the transfer.
Question 1: Can the congregation unilaterally disaffiliate itself
from one district, to seek membership in another?
Opinion: No. The bylaws are clear that a congregation may
request to transfer from one district of Synod to another
district of Synod but that the effect of the request is only upon
approval of the respective boards of directors of the districts.
Bylaw 4.1.1.4 states: “Transfer of congregations between
districts is completed upon approval of the respective district
boards of directors at the request of the congregation.”
Question 2: Should a congregation assert that it has disaffiliated itself from its district, what is the effect of
that assertion?
Opinion: There is no effect upon the congregation or the
district of its membership by any assertion of a congregation
without the approval of the respective districts’ boards of
directors. According to Constitution Art. XII 1, “The Synod
is divided into districts, the geographical boundaries of which
are determined by the Synod and are altered by it according
to circumstances.” Membership in Synod shall be within the
geographical boundaries of the districts the Synod has created
except where the districts through their boards of directors
agree to such changes. In the case of a non-geographical
district, transfer to or from such a district to another is, in an
identical way, contingent on the approval of both respective
boards of directors.
Question 3: Is there any other authority in the Synod (district
convention, Synod convention, etc.) that can approve a congregation’s transfer between districts,
other than the district boards of directors, or any
mechanism of review that could compel a district
board of directors to revise its decision in such a
matter?
Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of Synod make no provision for any means of transfer of a congregation from one
district to another except through the request of the congregation and the approvals of the boards of directors of both the
district wherein the congregation currently is a member and
the district to which the congregation requests a transfer.
While normally this is a simple administrative matter
subject to the approval of the respective boards of directors,
a transfer from one district to another depends upon the good
judgment and good will of all involved, including the respective
district presidents, the congregation, and the districts’ boards
of directors.
The commission notes two possibilities for a congregation
that feels it has been inappropriately denied a transfer:
2019 Convention Workbook