# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S131
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNODICAL REPORTS 131

The list of the five candidates is then presented through the office
of the Secretary to the President of the Synod, who, in consultation
with the Vice-Presidents, appoints one of the five to membership
on the Commission.

During the past triennium the Commission has rendered ap-
proximately 150 written opinions in response to questions placed
before it. These opinions are the product of extensive study by and
discussion among the members of the Commission. An initial draft
of an opinion is prepared by one or more members of the Commis-
sion and then circulated among all the members for their review
and comments. Thereafter a revised opinion is prepared, taking into
consideration the comments received from the other members of
the Commission. In some instances draft opinions are revised many
times as the question is further studied and reviewed. The final
opinion is then agreed upon by all members of the Commission and
published by the Secretary of the Synod. If the Commission is
asked to reconsider an opinion, it will do so upon a written request
by any of the parties who are authorized by the Bylaw to request an
opinion from the Commission.

Deliberations by the Commission are done in private and kept
confidential by its members. It is to be remembered that the Com-
mission only provides interpretations of the Constitution, Bylaws,
and resolutions of the Synod. Its opinions reflect what the mem-
bers of the Commission conclude is stated in the document; not
what it should say but what it does say. Therefore, if the Synod de-
termines that an interpretation by the Commission brings about a
faulty result, it behooves the Synod through its delegates in con-
vention assembled to pass a resolution that amends the language in
question to reflect the will of the Synod.

In a number of opinions the Commission noted some apparent
omissions or conflicts in the wording of the Constitution and By-
laws of the Synod. These matters were referred to the appropriate
board or commission by the secretary of the Commission.

Res. 7-02 of the 2001 convention of the Synod directed the
Commission to complete expeditiously its review of the Commis-
sion on Structure’s report on the LCMS Handbook reorganization.
This was done, and the Commission forwarded to the pro tem
Commission on Structure a report noting 162 items that required
further attention by the pro tem Commission before it prepared its
final report to the 2004 convention of the Synod.

In November of 2003 the Board of Directors of the Synod
adopted a resolution that declared that it cannot agree with or ac-
cept eight opinions of this Commission and declared such opinions
to be “of no effect,” basing its action on its conclusion that these
opinions placed impermissible limitations on the authority of the
Board under the laws of the State of Missouri. This action by the
Board of Directors was in direct conflict with Bylaw 3.183 d 2,
which provides: “[The Board] shall have the right to call up for re-
view, criticism, modification, or revocation any action or policy of
a program board, commission, or council, except opinions of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters.” In January of 2004 the
members of this Commission and five members of the Board of
Directors met in an all-day meeting to discuss the issues involved.
No agreement was reached, but further study is to be given to the
matter by the Board and this Commission.

Every meeting of the Commission opens with prayer, implor-
ing our gracious God to be present in our deliberations and to give
to each of us a rich measure of His grace so that the product of our
deliberations will be pleasing to Him. With that knowledge we
have diligently worked to fulfill the task that the Synod has as-
signed to this Commission. .
Walter F. Tesch, Chairman

R7-07
Commission on Structure

A standing Commission on Structure (COS) was reestablished
by the 2001 convention of the Synod (Res. 7-01). The basic goal of
this commission was defined as “providing direction for ongoing
maintenance and management of the Handbook: the Articles of In-
corporation, Constitution, and Bylaws of the Synod.”

The following have served on the COS during the past trien-
nium: George Gude, Richard Nuffer, Eugene Oesch, Richard
Radtke, and Lowell Schoer as appointed members with vote; Ray-
mond Hartwig and Bradley Hewitt as ex officio members with
vote; Walter Tesch as CCM representative without vote.

The newly constituted COS held its first meeting March 18-19,
2002, and has met seven times since that first meeting.

Although the goal was clearly established in Res. 7-01, the
Commission was given significant latitude in how it went about
carrying out its duties. This is neither the time nor the place to go
into great detail regarding this matter, but there are three general
areas that probably need some clarification: (1) what type of issues
the Commission would consider; (2) who could recommend that
they be considered; and (3) the form such recommendations should
take.

As related to the first, the Commission took a very broad view
and, in general, assumed any issue that had Handbook implications
could be considered. For some issues that consideration might be
no more than the Commission being informed about what those di-
rectly concerned with the issue were planning to submit to the con-
vention. For others, the nature of the change being proposed might
have sufficiently broad implications to make it advisable to submit
any concrete proposal to the Commission for review and comment.
It is critical here to remember that Res. 7-01 does not require that
all such overtures must be submitted to the Commission on Struc-
ture prior to submission for consideration by the Synod at large.

As related to the second, the general principle applied was that
issues to be considered might come from the Commission itself or
from any official body within the Synod. Put another way, an issue
could come from any agency that could submit a memorial to be
considered by the Synod in convention. In fact, the issues submit-
ted to the Commission have come from many different groups.

As related to the third, the issues that have come before the
Commission have been in forms ranging from identification of a
general area of concern such as, “We need to look at how we elect
delegates to the synodical convention,” to very specific suggestions
on how members of.the CCM (Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters) should be chosen. The Commission has been willing to con-
sider any form so long as its source met the requirements estab-
lished in the preceding paragraphs.

The Commission has carefully considered every issue presented
to it. Although it did not have the time to act on all of them, it has
prepared approximately 30 overtures for the convention. The word
approximately is used because the Commission will meet at least
once and perhaps twice more between the time this report is being
written and the deadline for submission of overtures for the 2004
convention. These overtures, more than anything else, describe the
activity of the COS during the past triennium.

Based on the number of issues brought to the Commission’s at-
tention, and on the diverse source of these referrals, is seems clear
that the 2001 convention was wise to reestablish a regular Com-
mission on Structure. While it is impossible to predict events over
the next triennium, I have no doubt the Commission will have to re-
visit some of the issues to which it has already responded as well as
deal with new ones. There is too much happening in this Synod for
it to be otherwise.

Lowell Schoer, Chairman

2004 Convention Workbook