# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S307 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 307 8-36 To Declare CCM Opinions 02-2296, 02-2309, and 02-2320 Invalid and to Avoid Conjecture WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) responded to the question “Do the Constitution and/or Bylaws of Synod allow or contemplate the discipline of any pastor of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod who has taken an action with the full knowledge and approval of his superior”; and WHuEREAS, The response of the CCM in its Opinion 02-2296; 02-2320, stated, “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. For a thorough treatment of this issue, see Opinion 02-2309”; and WHEREAS, The definition of the word contemplate is (1) “To view or consider with continued attention, to meditate on” and (2) “To have in view as contingent or probable, or as an end or inten- tion, to purpose or intend,” and the synonym of the word contem- plate is “to think studiously, to ponder”; and WHEREAS, It is not possible for any person or commission to know what the Constitution or Bylaw might “consider with contin- ued attention,” “view as contingent,” “purpose or intend,” or “think studiously or ponder”; and WuerEAS, The only way to know what a Constitution or Bylaw allows is to pay attention to the clear and plain meaning of the words of said Constitution or Bylaw; and WHEREAS, Creatively discovering the intention of a constitution or bylaw apart from the plain and accepted meaning of the words contained in said constitution or bylaw makes it possible to read any meaning into the constitution or bylaw (e.g., “We must operate with the spirit of the law, not with the letter of the law”); and WHEREAS, The reference to a previous opinion of the CCM (02-2309) indicates that the CCM is basing this opinion on a pre- vious opinion and not on the clear words of either the Constitution or Bylaws; therefore be it Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori- alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare the above opinions (02- 2309; 02-2296; 02-2320) of the CCM to be invalid; and be it fur- ther Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori- alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare that the CCM shall give its opinions based upon the clear words of the Constitution or By- laws, not on the conjecture of the intention of the Constitution or Bylaws; and be it finally Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori- alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare that the CCM shall not use a previous opinion as the basis for a second opinion. Montana District 27 66 8-37 To Review CCM Opinion 02-2309 and Role of CCM WHEREAS, Decisions of the Commission on Constitutional Mat- ters under Bylaw 3.905 d are “binding on the question decided un- less and until it is overruled by a synodical convention”; and WHEREAS, Opinion 02-2309 of the Commission on Constitu- tional Matters has caused concern and has been the subject of much discussion within the Synod; therefore be it Resolved, That the Minnesota South District request the Synod at its 2004 convention to review the CCM opinion and the role of the CCM in the life and work of the Synod. Minnesota South District 8-38 To Overrule CCM Opinion 02-2309 , WHEREAS, Decisions of the Commission on Constitutional Mat- ters under Bylaw 3.905 d are “binding on the question decided un- less and until it is overruled by a synodical convention”; and WHEREAS, CCM Opinion 02-2309 states that a member of Synod who has acted contrary to Art. XIII of the Constitution, and thus is guilty of false doctrine or scandalous life, cannot be charged with this offense if the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor gave ap- proval; and WHEREAS, The CCM is required to limit its opinions to the in- terpretation of “the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions” (Bylaw 3.905 d); and WHEREAS, This opinion of the CCM is not supported by the lan- guage of any provision in the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions; and WHEREAS, This opinion of the CCM undermines Art. II, Art. III, Art. VI, and Art. XIII of the Constitution, among other provi- sions of the Constitution and Bylaws; therefore be it Resolved, That the Synod at its 2004 convention overrules CCM Opinion 02-2309. Circuit 13 Forum North Wisconsin District 8-39 To Overturn CCM Opinion re Ecclesiastical Supervision WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) has ruled that the “Constitution and Bylaws of Synod do not allow or contemplate the expulsion of a member of Synod on the basis of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval of the ap- propriate ecclesiastical supervisor” (Reporter, March 2003); and WHEREAS, This ruling flatly contradicts the Scriptures which re- peatedly warn against “Making the Word of God of none effect through human traditions” (Mark 7:13), and insists that “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and Wuereas, The CCM ruling is incompatible with the Lutheran Confessions which warn against those who “demand that their tra- ditions be observed more carefully than the Gospel” (Ap XXVIII 3); therefore be it Resolved, That the 2004 Synod convention reject, condemn, and overturn the CCM ruling in question, and declare it null and void and of no further effect. Salem Taylorsville, NC U 8-40 To Reverse CCM Opinions 02-2296, 02-2320, and 02-2309 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 authoriza- tion of the Synod President be charged under Bylaw 2.27 for such act... ?” issued its opinions 02-2296, 02-2320 and 02-2309; and WHEREAS, The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, and par- ticularly Art. XI and XII, and Bylaws 3.101, 4.71, 4.73, nowhere state that the Synod or District President may grant a synodical member immunity from Art. XIII and those Bylaws pertaining to ecclesiastical supervision because a member took action “with the full knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical su- pervisor”; and WHEREAS, CCM Opinion 02-2309 moves beyond the questions asked by stating that the Synod may not take action “...to terminate the membership of its member who, when performing his/her offi-