# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S319
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 317

In view of the above, the District Bylaws must be modified to be in
conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod relative to
the nomination of officers as indicated.

Adopted June 25, 1997

Constitutionality of District Resolution

A member of a District had asked the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters to provide an opinion regarding the constitutional-
ity of a resolution adopted at the 1997 convention of the District.
After stating the motion as adopted, he expressed the view that the
District had fundamentally and substantively changed the relation-
ship of the District to the congregations by referring to the restruc-
turing of the District structure toward “greater partnership with
congregations.” He stated that on the basis of the Bylaws of the
Synod, there is no statement to the effect that the District is in part-
nership with congregations. His question was whether the resolu-
tion, in effect, altered the Bylaws of the Synod without benefit of a
synodical resolution in convention and, if so, was the resolution
and subsequent action of the convention null.

A second question which was raised was with regard to the au-
thorization given to the District Board of Directors to “exercise re-
sponsible flexibility” in regard to existing regulations. His question
was whether a District bylaw is different than a District regulation
and if there is no difference, was the Board of Directors, by this
resolution, being granted the authority to exercise responsible flex-
ibility regarding bylaws of the District. He further asked whether, if
this was the case, the resolution left the District open to the possi-
bility of litigation, whether the resolution was then constitutional,
and if not, whether the resolution was null.

The commission had also received material from the office of
the District President regarding the background for the adoption of
the resolution.

After carefully considering all of the issues involved, the com-
mission decided to respond as follows:

Much depends on the understanding of the term partnership. It
should first be noted that on the basis of Bylaw 1.05 b Districts are com-
ponent parts of the Synod. If “partnership” means what is stated in
Bylaw 1.05 c namely, that “The Synod and its component parts are de-
signed to assist the congregations and their members in conserving and
promoting the unity of the faith and in carrying out their mission and
ministry” [emphasis added], then to describe the District as being in
“partnership” with the congregations would not be unconstitutional or
contrary to the Bylaws, If it were interpreted to mean that the District is
an equal to the congregation in determining the congregation’s form of
government or course of action, then it would conflict with the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod, e.g., Art. VII.

The resolution adopted by the District favors the first interpre-
tation of “partnership” as the District seeks to assist the congrega-
tions in meeting the objectives of the Synod, especiaily those stated
in Art. III, 2, 4, 5,7, and 9. In contrast to that relationship which
exists between the Synod and its Districts, which is a directive one,
the resolution nowhere indicates that a directive relationship is in-
tended between the District and the congregation. Consequently,
to speak of the relationship as a “partnership” in the sense defined
above is not contrary to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod,
and the adopted resolution is not null on that basis.

With regard to the second question, the commission finds it im-
possible to provide an answer without knowing what is meant by
the term “regulations.” Furthermore, the meaning of the phrase “ex-
ercise responsible flexibility” remains undefined. The substitution
of “regulations” for bylaws could lead to the conclusion that “reg-
ulations” are similar to “procedures” or “ways of implementation,”
all of which could be legitimate under the bylaws and not contrary
to them or the Constitution. It could be interpreted to mean that
“regulations” and “bylaws” are meant to be identical, and the sub-
stitution was made only because it was recognized that the use of
the term “bylaws” would be unacceptable. It would be unconstitu-
tional to alter the bylaws under the guise of “exercising flexible re-
sponsibility.” The Bylaws of the Synod or the District may not be
diminished by regulations.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters cannot, on the basis
of the information provided, determine that the resolution adopted

by the District is unconstitutional. It has no way of identifying the
understanding of the convention at the time of its adoption. Conse-
quently, it is also, in view of the lack of definition, unable to de-
clare the resolution null.

Adopted June 25, 1997

Voting Rights of Suspended Congregation

A congregation had been informed that because it was sus-
pended by the District President, it would not be allowed to register
its lay delegate for voting at the District convention. The question
had been asked as to whether or not this was in conformity with
the Bylaws of the Synod. The Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters provided the following response:

Facts: A congregation and its pastor have been placed on suspended
status by a District President. The District President has now notified
the congregation and its pastor that both have been relieved of their del-
egate status at the District convention.

Issue: What effect does suspended status under Bylaw 2.25 have
on a congregation’s standing at a District convention?

Opinion:

Art. V A of the Constitution of the Synod states as follows: “All or-
ganized congregations that have joined the Synod hold voting member-
ship. At the meetings of the Districts of the Synod every congregation
or parish is entitled to two votes, one of which is to be cast by the pas-
tor and the other by the lay delegate.”

‘Bylaw 2.25 a states as follows: “When formal proceedings have
been commenced against a member of the Synod (individual or con-
gregation), under the procedure set forth in Bylaw 2.27, ...” Further, By-
laws 2.25 c and 2.25 c 1, state as follows: “An individual member of
the Synod on suspended status shall (1) be relieved of duties as a mem-
ber of the Synod (e.g., as a delegate to a District or synodical conven-
tion, ...”

It is to be noted that Bylaw 2.25 a makes a distinction between “in-
dividual” or “congregation” whereas Bylaw 2.25 c addresses only an
“individual” member of the Synod on suspended status. It is silent as
to a congregation. Accordingly, the commission holds that when a con-
gregation and its pastor are both on suspended status, the congregation
retains its voting privileges at a District convention but its pastor, who is
on suspended status may not cast the pastoral vote to which the congre-
gation is entitled under Art. V A of the Constitution of the Synod.

Adopted July 6, 1997

Inclusion of Women in the Pastoral Office

A pastor had asked the commission to provide an opinion in re-
sponse to the following questions:

May a congregation of the LCMS be suspended from membership
in the Synod for publicly stating that women should be included in the
pastoral office?

May a member of a Missouri Synod congregation continue as a
teacher at one of the schools in the Concordia University System who
publicly states that women should be included in the pastoral! office?

The response of the commission is as follows:

In a recent opinion, the commission stated that a congregation
which publicly and persistently teaches a position which is contrary to
that adopted by the Synod may be suspended from membership in the
Synod. This would be true no matter what the issue involved.

Since the Synod has consistently stated as its position that Scripture
does not permit the inclusion of women in carrying out the specific
functions of the pastoral office, for a congregation to teach publicly and
persistently contrary to this position would subject that congregation to
the possibility of suspension from membership in the Synod.

With respect to teaching in a school of the Concordia University
System by a member of a Missouri Synod congregation that women
should be included in the pastoral office, the commission first notes that
schools of the Concordia University System are schools of the Synod.
As such they are required to honor and uphold the resolutions of the
Synod. To permit a teacher, whether or not a member of a Missouri
Synod congregation, to publicly and persistently teach in such a school
that women should be included in the pastoral office would not be con-
sistent with honoring and upholding resolutions of the Synod. It would
be the responsibility of the administration of the school and/or its Board