# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S305
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 305

rT s or polity. Until such tim: ling is i th
member i heed the counsel and advice of the President
th nt ruling of ti m-

mission. Further dissent should be expressed according to the

roper pri res as set forth in the Constitution and Bylaw:
(see Bylaws 2,39 c and 109 d).
d. If another member of the Synod objects to actions taken
er consultation wi e President as ecclesiastical supervisor,
h t discuss his concerns wi ical member
and the President. If the matter remains unresolved, he may ap-
peal the matter to the appropriate commission of the Synod.

ile retainin: ight of brotherly dissent, m i X=
to accept the rulings of the commissions. F 1 dissent
hould Xpr ccording to the proper procedures as se!

forth in the Constitution and Bylaws. Where members of the
Synod have doctrinal disagreements and disputes, mechanisms

tion of doctrinal positions Bylaws 1.09 and 2.39). Such dis-

ments or di: however, are not in to lead to the

ringing of charges under Bylaw 2.27 or the implementation of
i ion ter VIII of the Bylaw

Immanuel

Danville, IL

8-32

To Declare That Counsel from Ecclesiastical
Supervisor Does Not Exempt from Art. XIII

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
in response to the question “May a District President who has acted
in a matter, after having received the advice and authorization of
the synodical President, be charged under Bylaw 2.27 for such an
act?” issued its Opinion 02-2309; and

WHEREAS, The CCM opinion moves beyond the question asked
by stating that the Synod may not take action “to terminate the
membership of its member who, when performing his/her official
duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervi-
sor designated by the Synod”; and

WHEREAS, The CCM opinion states that even if “an act is in fact
contrary to Article XII of the Constitution (emphasis added), the
member who has acted cannot be charged since he/she acted ac-
cording to the advice of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor’; and

WHEREAS, In stating this opinion, the CCM has in fact amended
Art. XIII of the Constitution, since Art. XIII makes no such provi-
sion for permitting members to “‘act contrary to the confession laid
down in Article I and to the conditions of membership laid down
in Art. VI’ (Art. XIII 1) “if they have received counsel from their
ecclesiastical supervisor permitting them to do so”; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori-
alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare the response of the
CCM in answer to this question (Opinion 02-2309) to be invalid
and to have no standing in the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori-
alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare that the provisions for
removal from the Synod that are set down in Art. XIII of the Con-
stitution are to be followed when a member has in fact acted con-
trary to the confession laid down in Art. II and the conditions of
membership laid down in Art. VI, notwithstanding the counsel or
advice received from an ecclesiastical supervisor; and be it finally

Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori-
alize the 2004 Synod convention to reprove the CCM for exceeding
the authority granted it, in fact amending the Constitution by an
opinion that purports to interpret.

Montana District

8-33

To Overrule Opinions 02-2309 and 02-2296
of CCM and Clarify Bylaws

WuerEAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
has ruled that the “Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not
allow or contemplate the expulsion of a member of the Synod on
the basis of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval of
the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor” (02-2296, Reporter,
March 2003, p. 10); and

WHEREAS, In the minutes of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters, Jan. 20-21, 2003, it was revealed that the CCM addressed
the issue of “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Conflict of Interest”
(02-2309); and

WHEREAS, The following questions were asked the CCM:

Question 1: “May a District President who has acted in a matter
after receiving the advice of and authorization of the Synodical
President be charged under Bylaw 2.27 for such act, which charge
could result in his removal from his position as District President as
well as from the roster of the Synod?”

Question 2: “May an ordained or commissioned minister or a
member congregation who has acted in a matter after receiving the
advice and authorization of his/her District President be charged
under Bylaw 2.27 for such act, which could result in removal from
the roster of the Synod?”; and

WHEREAS, The answer given for both questions was “‘no”; and

WHEREAS, God’s Word holds every person responsible for his
or her own actions (Ps. 62:12), “But let each one examine his own
work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in
another. For each one shall bear his own load” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:9-10;
Gal. 6:4—5); and

WHEREAS, These CCM rulings are incompatible with the
Lutheran Confessions, which deny that texts like Luke 10:16 and
Heb. 13:17 grant ecclesiastical supervisors any authority beyond
the Gospel itself (Ap XXVIII, 17-21) and recognize no privileged
“official” zone of immunity from the normal demands of truth;
quite on the contrary: “We also believe, teach, and confess that in a
time when confession is necessary, as when the enemies of God’s
Word want to suppress the pure teaching of the Holy Gospel, the
entire community of God, indeed, every Christian, especially ser-
vants of the Word as the leaders of the community of God, are ob-
ligated according to God’s Word to confess true teaching and
everything that pertains to the whole of religion freely and pub-
licly. They are to do so not only with words but also in actions and
deeds” (FC SD X, 10); and

WHEREAS, The Constitution forbids matters of doctrine and con-
science to be decided by anything other than the Word of God (Art.
Vill C), and nothing can be binding on individual congregations
that is contrary to God’s Word (Art. VII 1); and

Wuereas, Even secular courts have rejected the claim that per-
sonal responsibility is removed when one has received the autho-
rization of his or her superior; therefore be it

Resolved, That Iowa District East (DE) of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod meeting in Convention memorialize the LCMS
meeting in convention in 2004 to overrule CCM Opinions 02-2309,
02-2296, and any and all opinions of the CCM that grant immunity
from ecclesiastical discipline based on authority received from an
ecclesiastical supervisor; and be it further

Resolved, That the IDE ask the Commission on Structure to
draw up bylaws that clearly reflect the biblical doctrine that each
person bears responsibility for error in himself and that if an eccle-
siastical supervisor erroneously gives permission for another to
commit or participate in error, that the supervisor also should be
held accountable for his own actions; and be it finally

Resolved, That the IDE ask the Commission on Structure to pre-
sent these proposed bylaws to the Synod in convention for adop-
tion.

_ Towa District East