# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S256
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

256 STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION

not in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inex-
pedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned.”

St. John Lutheran Church
Hattiesburg, MS

7-16

To Set Aside CCM Ruling re Art. VII

WHEREAS, Art. VII of the Constitution of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod makes no exceptions when it states that
no resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual
congregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the
Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condi-
tion of a congregation is concerned; and

WHEREAS, The Synod at its 1962 convention agreed that there
were no exceptions to the provisions of Art. VII when it declared
that a resolution of a previous convention which attempted to make
a synodically adopted doctrinal statement binding upon members of
the Synod was unconstitutional; and

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters’ ruling
of Sept. 14, 1999, in effect makes doctrinal resolutions of the
Synod binding upon its members; and

WHEREAS, That ruling of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters is clearly contrary to the Synod’s Constitution and the af-
firrnation of the Constitution’s stance by the 1962 synodical con-
vention; therefore be it

Resolved, That St. Matthew Lutheran Congregation petition the
Synod, in convention, to set aside the Sept. 14, 1999, ruling of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters and reaffirm its historic po-
sition that Synod is only an advisory body.

St. Matthew, Gulfport, MS; Circuit 14 Forum, Southern District

7-17

To Reject CCM Opinion That Seeks
to Limit Congregational Self-Government

WHEREAS, Article VII of Synod’s Constitution states: “In its re-
lation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government
exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the
individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but an ad-
visory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing
anything upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is
not in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inex-
pedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned”; and

WHEREAS, Dr. C. F. W. Walther declared in 1879: “According
to our Constitution, no synodical resolution is binding on the indi-
vidual congregations. No resolution. Mark that well!”; and

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters stated in
Opinion 99-2157 (Sept. 14, 1999) that “the phrase ‘inexpedient as
far as the condition of the congregation is concerned’ does not
speak to the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod and is restricted
to resolutions of the Synod which are non-doctrinal in nature”; and

WHEREAS, This opinion, if left to stand, would nullify the guar-
antee of Art. VII of the Synod’s Constitution by limiting its appli-
cation only to non-doctrinal resolutions; and

Wuereas, Although Art. VIII C of Synod’s Constitution reads:
“All matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided only by
the Word of God. All other matters shall be decided by majority
vote,” the opinion of the CCM makes any doctrinal resolution
passed by majority vote, rather than by the Word of God, binding
upon the members of Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod, in convention, reject Opinion 99-2157
insofar as it violates the guarantee of congregational self-govern-
ment found in the Synod’s Constitution; and be it further

Resolved, That the Constitution be changed so that all doctrinal
resolutions passed by majority vote—and therefore potentially sub-
ject in the future to be overturned by majority vote rather than by

the Word of God—be non-binding on the members of the Synod,
but rather commended to them.

Hosanna
Mankato, MN

7-18

To Address Concerns re Advisory Nature of Synod

WHEREAS, Art. VII of the Constitution expresses the basic prin-
ciple that the Synod is “but an advisory body” with respect to the
“individual congregation’s right of self-government”; and

WHEREAS, Many believe that an official and binding opinion of
the Commission on Constitutional Matters (Opinion 99-2157, is-
sued Sept. 14, 1999) has mistakenly restricted the meaning and ap-
plication of this principle by ruling that the inexpediency clause of
Art. VII “is restricted to resolutions adopted by a convention of the
Synod which are nondoctrinal in nature”; and

WHEREAS, Several Districts and congregations requested the
2001 synodical convention to reaffirm the advisory nature of the
Synod (see, for example, Overtures 7-36, 7-37, 7-38, 7-43, 7-44,
and 7-50 in the 2001 Convention Workbook, pp. 249-54); and

WHEREAS, Three Districts (with more than 600 congregation),
plus 2 Circuits and 63 individual congregations, submitted Over-
tures 7-35, 7-41, 7-42, 7-45, 7-46, 7-47, 7-48, 7-49, 7-52, 7-54,
7-55, and 7-58 to the 2001 Synod convention (see 2001 Conven-
tion Workbook, pp. 249-57), asking the Synod to overrule or re-
vise the aforementioned CCM opinion (an action permitted under
Bylaw 3.905 d); and

WHEREAS, The 2001 convention did not act on any of these
overtures (Note: Floor Committee 7 had prepared an omnibus res-
olution to decline more than 50 overtures, including those dealing
with the aforementioned CCM opinion [see proposed Res. 7-31 in
the 2001 Today’s Business, pp. 140-42], and this proposed resolu-
tion was never presented to the convention for action); and

WHEREAS, The issues addressed in these overtures are too im-
portant for the well-being of our congregations to be simply ig-
nored by the Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That the questions raised by the aforementioned over-
tures dealing with the advisory nature of the Synod in its relation-
ship to member congregations, with special reference to synodical
resolutions and the Sept. 14, 1999, opinion of the CCM, be in-
cluded in the Synodwide study authorized by 2001 Res. 7-21 under
the general direction of the Synod President (see 2001 Proceed-
ings, pp. 173-74); and be it further

Resolved, That the Districts of the Synod be directed to provide
ample opportunities for study and discussion of the issues by both
clergy and laity, that the results of these discussions be reported to
the Synod President, and that the Synod President report the find-
ings of the Synodwide study and make appropriate recommenda-
tions to the 2007 convention after consulting with both the CCM
and the CTCR; and be it finally

Resolved, That the 2004 convention declare, as this Synodwide
study moves forward, that the questioned statements in the Sept.
14, 1999, CCM opinion (see second Whereas above) mean that
congregations may apply the inexpediency clause of Art. VII to any
synodical resolutions except those that are explicit restatements of
the positions of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions on
the issues addressed.

Bethany, Menlo Park, CA; Prince of Peace, Orlando, FL;
Emmanuel, Kettering, OH

7-19
To Affirm Foundational Essence of Synodical Polity

Preface

The Synod was formed on the basis of God’s Word in Acts
15:1-31; 1 Cor. 12:4~31; Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10; and Rom. 16:17.
Under God’s Word, congregations, ordained and commissioned