# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S258
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

258 STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION

public functions of a priest in the name of the congregation. Only
one who has been thus asked by the congregation is to officiate
publicly. ... For what is common to all, no one dare take upon him-
self without the will and command of the community.” It is evi-
dent that this also influenced Luther’s thinking about church gov-
ernment.

Thus in the Synod’s polity, the Synod, who is collectively the
association of self-governing congregations, entrusts a specific
function and responsibility to a specific entity, officer, board, or
commission, and each is accountable to the Synod. The Synod ex-
pects a “walking together” in this responsible balance of authority,
functions, responsibility, and power without any entity, agency, of-
ficer, board, or commission meddling (1 Peter 4:15) in the respon-
sibility of another. No one is to interfere in the work of another.
No self-appointed person, entity, agency, group, or board is to in-
trude upon the office of another.

So also in the Synod’s polity, doctrinal and ecclesiastical su-
pervision is exercised only by those “called” (entrusted) to do so
and not by popular political forces, nor public opinion nor public
agitation, nor by the seminaries, nor even by dispute resolution
processes (though this can aid in the supervision). However, the
President, in carrying out the duty of supervision, is assisted by the
Commission on Doctrinal Review and the Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations and is accountable not to the Synod’s
Board of Directors nor to himself but to the Synod in convention,
the very congregations that elected him.

WHEREAS, In his presidential address in 1848, Walther said:
“We can hardly consider any other Constitution as the most salu-
tary except one under which the congregations are free to govern
themselves but enter into a synodical organization such as the one
existing among us with the help of God, for enjoying fraternal con-
sultation, supervision, and aid to spread the kingdom of God jointly
and to make possible and accomplish the aims of the church in gen-
eral” and that the form of church government “is an inalienable part
of their Christian liberty and that Christians as members of the
church are subject to no power in the world except the clear Word
of the living God”; and

WHEREAS, The Synod has maintained its church polity for 157
years based on theological principles and a covenant of love with
like-minded brothers and sisters in Christ agreeing to walk together
orderly in their faith and life, doctrine and practice; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention, in the midst of an appar-
ent and current constitutional crisis, reaffirm the basic foundational
and forming principles of the Synod’s polity; and be it further

Resolved, That any changes and amendments in the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws or structure at this or any future Synod conven-
tion not minimize or destroy the foundational essence of the polity
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; and be it finally

Resolved, That any commission, task force, or committee
charged with studying and proposing any needed and appropriate
changes in the Constitution and Bylaws in order to better enable
the mission of the Synod in this century, give full consideration to
the historical context and development of the Synod’s polity and
the theological principles upon which the Synod’s polity was
formed.

Circuits 17 and 19
Texas District

7-20
To Clarify Relationship of Synod to Congregations

WHEREAS, There is some confusion regarding the autonomy and
authority of the local congregation with regard to the authority of
synodical resolutions and the impact they have on the congrega-
tion; and

WHEREAS, Our Constitution has clearly set out the relationship
between the Synod and its members, as found in Art. VII 1. It
states: “In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesias-
tical government exercising legislative or coercive powers, and

with respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-govern-
ment it is but an advisory body”; and

Whereas, Art. VII 1 clarifies that sentence by stating: “‘No res-
olution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual con-
gregation 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, Art. VIII C reads: “All matters of doctrine and con-
science shall be decided only by the Word of God. All other mat-
ters shall be decided by majority vote”; and

Whereas, Dr. C. F. W. Walther, widely known as the “Father
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod” and who served as its
President and leading theologian, clearly understood and wrote
about the relationship of the Synod to its congregations in 1897
when he stated: “According to our Constitution, no synodical reso-
lution is binding on the individual congregations. No resolution.
Mark that well!” (“Duties of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod,” Es-
says for the Church, CPH, 1992, p. 31); and

WHEREAS, A problem has arisen when the Commission on Con-
stitutional Matters, in Opinion 99-2157 of Sept. 14, 1999, obscured
the clear intent of the constitutional guarantees of Art. VII by ruling
that “the phrase ‘inexpedient as far as the condition of a congrega-
tion is concerned’ does not refer to the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod and is restricted to resolutions adopted by a convention
of the Synod which are nondoctrinal in nature”; and

WHEREAS, This opinion, if left to stand, would nullify the guar-
antees of Art. VII and Art. VIII of our Constitution by limiting its
application only to nondoctrinal resolutions; and

WHEREAS, The opinion transforms matters of doctrine and con-
science, which according to Art. VIII can be decided only by the
Word of God, into matters that can be settled by a simple majority
vote of a convention, and then become binding upon all members
of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, The overtures submitted to the 2001 convention and
the corresponding resolution, which focused on these issues, were
not dealt with because of a lack of time; and

WHEREAS, The concern that prompted these overtures are of ur-
gent importance for our life together as member congregations of
the Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention declare that under no
circumstances may the Synod deprive any member of the Synod
the freedom granted in Art. VII of the Constitution; and be it fur-
ther

Resolved, That the Synod in convention overturn CCM Opin-
ion 99-2157, insofar as it violates the guarantee of constitutional
self-government found in our Constitution; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Synod in convention assure its members that
it continues to honor its historic “advisory” relationship with its
members with regard to resolutions, Bylaws, and doctrinal state-
ments.

Lord of Life
Leawood, KS

7-21

To Affirm That Synod Exists to Serve Members

WueREAS, The preliminary report of the Task Force on Na-
tional/District/Synod Relations has caused some confusion, and at
times there appears to be confusion in the Task Force report itself;
and

WHEREAS, Similar confusion is evident in some of the actions of
the Board of Directors and by other leaders in our beloved Synod
when their actions seem to illustrate belief in, and advocacy of, an
attitude and structure that have the members serving the Synod

’ rather than the Synod serving its members; and

Whereas, Lutheran theology and practice from the time of the
Reformation have emphasized that the Gospel and service—rather
than control—are at the center of the life of the church, and that