# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S327
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 327

‘

tor the congregation’s
member”?

Response to question 5: The Synod’s dispute resolution “Rules of
Procedure” were created as a result of 1995 Res. 7-03B, which directed
their formulation. Accordingly, the Commission can render an opinion
on any aspect of the resolution that mandated the procedures. However,
interpretation of the content of such procedures is beyond the authority
of the Commission. Since this question involves theology, it will more
properly be directed to the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions.

‘scriptural responsibilities toward its

6. Given that the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercis-
ing legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the indi-
vidual congregations right of self-government, it is but an advi-
sory body (LCMS Constitution, Art. VII, “Relation of the Synod
to Its Members”), does the Synod or its Districts or any officer
of the Synod or officer of its Districts have the ecclesiastical au-
thority to not respect action(s) taken by an LCMS congregation
and to unilaterally cancel and/or declare action(s) taken by an
LCMS congregation or its voters assembly as illegal, non-bind-
ing, not valid, and/or of no effect?

Response to question 6: The Commission responds that neither the
Synod, nor any of its Districts, nor any of its officers can unilaterally
cancel an action taken by an LCMS congregation through its voters as-
sembly or by edict make such action non-binding, not valid, or of no
effect. lf the action of the congregation is such that it is subject to the
Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws or
could lead to an action to terminate the congregation’s membership in
the Synod under Bylaw 2.27, the procedures outlined in those Bylaws
are the remedy available to the Synod, its Districts, and its officers.

Bylaw 8.11 addresses the consequences of a decision rendered
under the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process:

The congregation's right of self-government shall be recog-

nized. However, when a decision of a congregation is at issue, a

Dispute Resolution Panel may review the decision of the congrega-

tion according to the Holy Scriptures and shall either uphold the ac-

tion of the congregation or advise the congregation to review and

Tevise its decision. If the congregation does not revise its decision,

the other congregations of the Synod shall not be required to respect

this decision, and the District involved shall take action with respect
to the congregation as it may deem appropriate.

It must be noted that Bylaw 8.11 applies only to those decisions of a
congregation that may be brought before a Dispute Resolution Panel.

7. Does an LCMS District President have the ecclesiastical authority

to (1) not respect, unilaterally cancel, and/or declare an action
taken by the voters assembly of an LCMS congregation as not
valid and/or (2) not respect, unilaterally cancel, and/or declare as
not valid a meeting duly called by the voters assembly of a local
LCMS congregation?

Response to question 7: Because a District President is an officer
of the Synod, the opinion to the previous question is likewise applicable
to the District President. Neither the Synod, nor any of its Districts, nor
any of its officers have any authority to cancel or declare invalid a duly
called meeting of or an action taken by the voters assembly of a con-
gregation that is a member of the LCMS. A District President is, how-
ever, charged with the responsibility to “give counsel” to congregations
(Bylaw 4.73) when “a controversy arises in a congregation or between
two or more congregations of the District, or when there is evidence of
a continuing unresolved problem in doctrine or practice” (Bylaw 4.75).

Adopted Sept. 14, 1999

Questions re the Service of Women as Teachers
of Theology or Campus Presidents (99-2160)

in a memorandum dated April 20, 1999, the Board for Higher
Education/Concordia University System Board (BHE/CUS) re-
quested a ruling from the Commission on Constitutional Matters
regarding the service of women as teachers of theology or as pres-
idents of synodical colleges, universities, or seminaries. The reso-
lution of the board reads as follows:

Resolved, That the BHE/CUS request a ruling from the CCM on
whether or not the Constitution and Bylaws of the LCMS permit a
woman to serve as a teacher of religion/theology or as president of a
college, university, or seminary.

The question is divided into two parts. The first to be consid-
ered the following:

1. Do the Constitution and Bylaws of the LCMS permit a woman
to serve as a teacher of religion/theology of a college, university,
or seminary?

Response to question 1: The Commission responds that the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent regarding this question. The
Commission therefore renders no opinion, noting that Bylaw 3.905 d
limits its work to the interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws,
and resolutions. The Commission notes, however, that on page 50 in
the 1998 Convention Workbook, “Report of the Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations,” B, 1, b, this question, along with a number
of related questions and issues, continues to be among the studies in
progress of the CTCR.

2. Do the Constitution and Bylaws of the LCMS permit a woman
to serve as a president of a college, university, or seminary?

Response to question 2: Bylaw 3.905 d states that “an opinion ren-
dered by the commission shall be binding on the question decided un-
less and until it is overruled by a synodical convention.” The Commis-
sion calls attention to earlier rulings of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters in response to this question. In a March 16, 1984,
opinion, the Commission ruled as follows:

The Synod has stated that a woman is not to exercise authority
over man, particularly in spiritual matters. It is true that the presi-
dent of an institution may delegate certain responsibilities to staff
members. One of these responsibilities that may be delegated is that
of spiritual leadership of the institution. However, for the reason
that the power to delegate is just that and is not a release of the re-
sponsibility, and ultimate responsibility for supervision is that of the
person delegating the responsibility, the Commission rules that on
the basis of present Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod, a woman
may not serve as president since the president is to serve as the spir-
itual academic and administrative head of the institution according
to Bylaw 6.15. The Board of Regents may not delegate this ultimate
responsibility either since the Bylaws specifically assign it to the
president of the institution.

The Commission was immediately asked to reconsider this ruling. It
responded as follows:

In a telephone conference held on April 6, 1984, and by letter
circulated among its members the Commission reaffirmed its previ-
ous decision. It is of the opinion that when Bylaw 6.15 designates
the president as the “spiritual head” of the institution, service in the
position of president by a woman would be in conflict with the po-
sition of the Synod as stated in Res. 2.17 of the 1969 Denver con-
vention, and reaffirmed in conventions which followed. Since ulti-
mate responsibility as spiritual head of the institution remains with
the president of the institution, even though that responsibility is
delegated, any other ruling under the present Bylaws and resolu-
tions of the Synod would be impossible to sustain. ...

It is the opinion of the Commission that until the Synod clearly
indicates that the term “spiritual head” does not involve the presi-
dent of the institution in the distinctive functions of the pastoral of-
fice and/or exercising authority over men in spiritual matters, its de-
cision is consistent with the position adopted by previous
conventions.

In response to the current question, the Commission therefore an-
swers that because current Bylaw 6.12 retains the content and terminol-
ogy of the Bylaw 6.15 referred to in the 1984 opinion, including the re-
quirement that a president of an institution serve as its “spiritual head,”
the 1984 ruling of the Commission stands because it was never over-
tuled by a synodical convention.

Adopted Sept. 14, 1999

Question re the Eligibility of Called Teachers
to Vote in Voters Assemblies (99-2161)

A pastor of the Synod in an August 10 letter posed the follow-

ing question to the Secretary of the Synod:

[A statement in our school’s faculty handbook } reads, “Called teach-
ers at our school are members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod. ... As members of the Synod, not the congregation, they are not
eligible to vote in the voters assembly.”

This has never been my understanding. There are of course times
when it is prudent for a called worker to choose not to vote, but I find
nothing in the Handbook of the Synod that would prohibit called teach-
ers trom voting. Please consider my request that you research this mat-

2001 Convention Workbook