# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S311
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPENDIX I
OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Constitutionality of Bylaws on Dissent (98-2120)

A letter from a pastor tn effect questioning the constttutionality
of the Bylaws on dissent in the synodical Handbook was discussed.
Prior to the meeting a copy of this letter had been shared with the
Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations for his input. Dr. Sam Nafzger offered a copy of a pre-
sentation he had made some years earlier to the Minnesota South
District Pastors Conference, suggesting that the questions raised by
the pastor were addressed in the paper. The Commission com-
mended Dr. Nafzger’s paper, “Synod: Walking Together,” to the
pastor for his study, with an invitation that he resubmit his con-
cerns to the Commission should hts questions be not fully ad-
dressed. ;

Adopted Sept. 30, 1998

District President Fellowship and Discipline
Questions (98-2122)

In a letter to the Commission, a District Prestdent submitted a
series of questions relating to Art. III and VI of the Constitution
and also Bylaw 2.27 b and g and Bylaw 2.41 d. To more fully un-
derstand the content and significance of key phrases in these par-
ticular articles of the Constitution, the Commission invited Dr. Au-
gust Suelflow to be present at its meeting to provide some of the
history behind the wording of Art. III and VI.

Dr. Suelflow began his presentation with historical information
regarding Art. II, which he considers foundational to the following
articles, underscoring from the historical setting the significance of
the words “without reservation.” He also called attention to the
commentary on these articles provided by Dr. C. F. W. Walther,
primary author of the Constitution, at the same time also under-
scoring the care that was taken with the original wording, wording
which for the most part is the same as that in use today.

The Commission decided to delay its response to several of the
questions raised by the District President pending further research
and study, noting the significance of the questions being raised.
Replies were given to the remainder of the questions, however, as
follows:

In your letter of July 29 you asked ihe Commission to provide an-
swers to a number of questions in several categories. The Commission
is prepared to respond to most of your questions at this time but asks
your patience with regard to your third question which specifically ad-
dresses Art. [I] J] of the Constitution of the Synod and in particular its
statement that one of the objectives of the Synod is to “conserve and
promote the unity of the true faith” by providing “a united defense
against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy.” The Commis-
sion will also delay its answer to your fourth question regarding Art. VI
and “‘the participation of pastors of other churches or confessions in the
services and sacramental rites of a congregation of the Synod.” These
questions will remain unanswered for the present time to allow for fur-
ther study.

Several other of your questions, however, pertain to the remainder
of Art. If] 1, where, as you have correctly noted, it is stated that a pri-
mary objective of our Synod is “‘to conserve and promote the unity of
the true faith’ by working through the official structure of Ihe Synod 10-
ward fellowship with other Christian church bodies.” Your firs! ques-
tion to the Commission in this regard was the following:

|. Is it correct to assume that the reference to working through the

official structure of the Synod toward fellowship with other
Christian church bodies refers to procedures and actions such as
the ones that led to the declaration of altar and pulpit fellowship
with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ingria in Russia at the
1998 convention of the Synod?

In answer to your question the Commission calls your attention to
synodical Bylaw 13.03 a:

a. When a church body applies for formal recognition of altar
and pulpit fellowship with the Synod, such recognition shall be pro-
posed at a synodical convention only after the approval of the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations.

Compare also Res. 3-01 of the 1998 convention “To Declare Altar
and Pulpit Fellowship with Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ingria in
Russia,” noting in particular the following paragraphs:

WHEREAS, Doctrinal discussions between official representa-
tives of the LCMS and the ELCIR have revealed that complete
agreement between our two churches in doctrine and practice ex-
ists: and ...

WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
has reviewed the charter of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of In-
gria, and in accordance with Bylaw 13.03 a has recommended that
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod declare itself to be in altar
and pulpit fellowship with this church body; ...

Note that the procedure provided in the Bylaw was faithfully fol-
lowed in the reception into fellowship of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Ingria in Russia. The answer to your first question, there-
fore, is “yes.”

You also asked a second question regarding fellowship with other
church bodies:

2, Does the word “other” in the phrase “other Christian church bod-
ies” (Art. II 1) indicate that The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod considers itself a “Christian church body”? If so, does this
Article require the Synod also to work through its official struc-
ture toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies (ecu-
menical activities and endeavors) or does this objective leave the
Synod free to isolate itself from other Christian church bodies?

The Commission affirms that the phrase “other Christian church
bodies” in Art. III ! of the Constitution of the Synod does assume that
the Synod is a Christian church body. Furthermore, the phrase “work
through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian
church bodies” indicates that there must be a continuing effort toward
fellowship with other Christian church bodies, such efforts to proceed
through the Synod’s official structure. Bylaw 3.101 A 5 as it will read
in the 1998 Handbook elaborates upon the intended “official structure,”
stating that the President shall

5. be the chief ecumenical officer of the Synod. He or his rep-
resentative shall represent the Synod in official contacts with other
church bodies.

In addition, Bylaw 3.925 speaks of the functions of the Commis-
sion on Theology and Church Relations. The following sections are
pertinent:

a. The commission shall assist the President at his request in
discharging his constilutional responsibilities, specifically ...

2. in dealing with other church bodies;

3. in initiating and pursuing fellowship discussions with other
church bodies.

b. The commission shall provide guidance to the Synod in mat-
lers of lheology and church relations, specifically: ...

2. in addressing itself to and evaluating the existing fellowship
relations for the purpose of mutual admonition and encouragement.

It should also be noled that Art. III requires continuing efforts to-
ward fellowship. At the same time it offers no indication that such ef-
forts toward fellowship should compromise or deviate from the confes-
sional standard of the Synod as set forth in Art. [[ of the Constitution. It
is assumed that ihe degree to which the Synod is isolated from other

Christian church bodies is related to the degree 1o which there is doc-

trinal disagreement with other church bodies.

A second category of questions submitted by the District Pres-
ident were associated with Bylaw 2.27 g as adopted by the 1998
convention of the Synod.

Changing subjects in your letter, you also asked a number of ques-

tions regarding the newly adopted Bylaw 2.27 g:

|. [s the word “complaint” in the clause “if he receives a complaint
relative to a District President” limited to the complaints de-
scribed in 2.27 a, that is, a complaint “which could lead to the
expulsion of a member from the Synod under Article XIII of the
Constitution,” or can it be any complaint lodged against a Dis-

trict President?
The Commission calls attention to the fact that the word “com-
plaint” as used in Bylaw 2.27 g has the same meaning as the word

2001 Conventton Workbook