# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S203
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

UNPRINTED REPORT AND LATE OVERTURES
WHEREAS, The NW District Res. 4-01A is suspicious of
unspecified although “unwanted centralization of power
and the danger of coercive control”; and
WHEREAS, The NW District Res. 4-01A deals with the alleged numinous oppression of the District not by appealing
to repentance and reconciliation in Christ and His truth,
but appeals to its constituency and their political power by
resolving that the “District President’s primary responsibility to be to the congregations and workers of the District
that elected him”; and
WHEREAS, The NW District Res. 4-01A constitutes a reversal of rules. First, the resolution by revising the Synod
Bylaw 4.71 a adds a role to the District President that
amounts to a reversal of roles when it resolves to add to
Synod Bylaw 4.71 b the sentence, “He shall therefore represent his District in the Council of Presidents.” No longer
is the District President the representative of the entire
Synod in his “territory,” but now he is to represent his District (“territory”) to the Synod. Second, this reversal of roles
is seen in the revision that eliminates the wording in Synod
Bylaw 4.71 b that the District President “shall cause the
resolutions of the Synod to be implemented in the District.”
This reversal of historic roles pits Synod against District,
and District against Synod; and
WHEREAS, It is clear that the above mentioned addition
is superfluous for the following reasons:
1. The District President may already share his concerns
and those of the NW District with the Council of Presidents.
2. The local congregations on “the local scene” already
are not bound by nondoctrinal resolutions of the Synod “if it
appears to be inexpedient as far as the conditions of a congregation is concerned” (Constitution, Art. VII, 1998 Handbook, p. 11).
3. The Synod’s Constitution carefully avoids the charge
of the NW District Res. 4-01A in its fourth whereas, which
talks about “unwanted centralization of power and the danger of coercive control” in the Synod’s Constitution Art. XII
2, which states, “This Constitution is also the constitution
of each District of the Synod; however, each District is at
liberty to adopt such bylaws and pass such resolutions as it
deems expedient for its conditions, provided that such bylaws and resolutions do not conflict with the Constitution
and the Bylaws of the Synod” (1998 Handbook, p. 14).
4. The congregations that make up the NW District are
fairly represented at the Synod’s convention through their
electoral circuits and give directions to the Synod and its
component Districts, not the other way around.
5. It must also be noted that the congregations of the
Synod are not out of the loop but also have the right to
nominate their synodical President and First Vice-President; therefore be it
Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
in convention A.D. 2001, decline the memorial authorized
by the NW District Res. 4-01A as ill advised since it is
based on a misquote, misapplication, suspicion, political
power, superfluous changes, reversal of historic roles, and
would only serve to divide the Synod and not bring it together under Christ through repentance and the forgiveness of sin; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod ask the NW District to put
away their “senseless fear” and be at peace, even as God for

203

Christ’s sake is at peace with us. May God grant us all the
grace to walk together willingly on the basis of the Bible
and the Lutheran Confessions in love and truth (3 John 4).
Good Shepherd
Boise, ID
L7-146

To Add Six Members
to Synodical Nominations Committee
WHEREAS, The Synod in convention regularly elected the
synodical Nominations Committee until 1989; and
WHEREAS, The current system of electing the synodical
Nominations Committee by the Districts has only been in
use a decade; and while it has given voice to individual Districts, it has excluded the Synod in convention from having
any voice in the nominations process; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod in convention add six “at
large” members to the synodical Nominations Committee,
to be elected by the synodical convention.
Indiana District
L7-147

To Bar Committee for Convention
Nominations from Placing Its Own
Members into Nomination
WHEREAS, Districts elect people to the nominating committee to select their leaders, not to be those leaders; and
WHEREAS, It does not look good to members of the Synod
or to the world when those who are to select office holders
use their position to select themselves as those office holders; and
WHEREAS, The agencies, boards, and congregations of the
Synod are requested to nominate people who are qualified
to serve as the Synod’s office holders and this is frustrated
if the members of the Committee for Convention Nominations nominate themselves; therefore be it
Resolved, That members of the Committee for Convention Nominations shall not be nominated by the committee
for any office, board, or commission position that they do
not already hold.
St. Paul
California, MO
L7-148

To Adopt Bylaw to Govern Removal
of Board Members
Rationale
The Commission on Structure has advocated that the
Board of Directors of the Synod submit an action to the convention of the Synod advocating the adoption of a Bylaw to
govern the removal of board members. Recent interest in
such a Bylaw, especially on the part of the Boards of Regents of synodical colleges and universities, has prompted
this recommendation.
The following action, adopted by the Board of Directors
during its December 2000 meeting, proposes the addition
200l Convention Proceedings