# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S179
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
information for readers to draw different conclusions. CTX also
took issue with the interview process and complained that it did not
receive a list of questions and standards before the visit and, therefore, with no outlined process, it was challenging to ascertain the
nature of the visit besides the general expectation for ecclesiastical
questions. It also noted that the visitation team visited the university during the week prior to finals, a traditionally hectic time for
faculty, staff, and students.
President Christian acknowledged CTX was able to glean insights from the report and has committed itself to the following
actions:
•

Being more explicit with how Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions shape policy and practices, including the university’s statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

•

Creating a statement on human sexuality that aligns with the
Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions that will guide the
university’s policies and practices.

•

Developing a statement of what CTX means when it speaks
of its Lutheran identity, using it to inform and norm our work
across sectors.

•

Creating a practice whereby documentation is reviewed for
alignment with the university’s commitment to its Lutheran
identity.

In concluding, CTX confirmed it is a Lutheran institution of
higher education that aligns itself with The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and that the leadership made it clear to its constituents
that the president of the Synod had the right to visit the campus and
meet with employees and that they remain committed to the teachings and mission of the LCMS and remain a place where Christ is
honored, students of all backgrounds are welcome, and students
encounter the love and compassion of Jesus.
R65

Opinions of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters
The following opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) were issued since the report to the 2019 convention and
were selected by the commission’s chairman as being of general
interest to the Synod (for example, reviews of agency bylaws and
policy manuals are not included). Full commission minutes are reported at lcms.org/ccm.

Meaning of Face-to-Face (19-2914)
Minutes of July 18–19, 2019
The commission received the following request for an opinion
from a member of the Synod:
Question:

Opinion:

May the requirement of a “face-to-face meeting”
in Bylaw 1.10.5 also be fulfilled by modern digital technology via face-to-face telephone conversation via computers, smartphone and the like using
FaceTime or via Skype, where both parties are very
much face-to-face, merely separated by a monitor,
but in real-time communicating face-to-face?
No.

179

After receiving the request for the opinion, the commission requested input in accordance with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), in this instance,
from the Council of Presidents (COP), district presidents being primarily responsible to determine when the requirement of a faceto-face meeting has been satisfied, and staff of the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations. A very large number of virtually
unanimous responses were received, supporting the conclusion that
face-to-face means what it says, that is, in person. For example:
[P]arties need to make every effort to meet together physically—even it if requires personal financial expense and the
use of a great amount of time. Matthew 18 calls us to meet together. A personal meeting has qualities that cannot be duplicated electronically. Meeting personally also shows care for
one another demonstrated by the time and effort expended.
Some responses suggested that perhaps in extreme cases a technological alternative to direct physical interaction could be substituted for the in-person meeting. For example:
If for some reason, meeting “face-to-face” would cause an
inordinately long delay in the process and hurt the possibility
of reconciliation, or if an extreme circumstance exists that
does not allow for a personal meeting, an electronic meeting or meetings may be substituted after proper consultation
with the parties involved and with appropriate ecclesiastical
supervisors.
On the other hand, there was this response:
The only argument that I can muster for conducting such
meetings by electronic media is convenience. There is certainly no Biblical argument for doing so. Human convenience
does not seem to be a Biblical priority. Since human convenience often detracts from God’s purposes, I would not admit
it as a valid argument in favor of the proposal.
One response, in particular, crystallized what this commission finds
to be the requirement of the face-to-face language of the Bylaws of
the Synod:
Presuming that Matthew 5:24 and 18:15 are the Biblical
foundation for the face-to-face meeting requirement found in
the bylaws …
Jesus’ command to go to the brother (ὕπαγε) could not
have been understood in any other way, at the time, than
having the parties physically meet. … [T]o adopt the use of
electronic media for the purpose of meeting would require
interpreting the word “go” (ὕπαγε) to mean “stay.” … [W]e
should be interested very much in following the example given in the Scripture as closely as possible.
The verb in Jesus’ command to go to the brother (ὕπαγε) is
an imperative. At the very least, such an imperative requires
some commitment to making the reconciliation happen. The
arguments against physical meetings suggest a lack of commitment due to the cost of time and money. While some may
consider such expense a “barrier” to reconciliation … it is a
fruit of reconciliation.
Both texts suggest a high priority on maintaining relationships: [6:24: ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου,
18:15: ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου] … [C]ommon sense …
suggests that physical presence is the most effective means
of creating potential for good communication (e.g., tone,
facial expression, body language, the elimination of distractions unique to the individual’s location, and presence). …
2023 Convention Workbook