# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S309
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 309

knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervi-
sor”; and

WHEREAS, The Commission on or about Jan. 20-21, 2003, fur-
ther ruled, in Opinion 02-2309, Ecclesiastical Supervision and Con-
flict of Interest: “It would be inconsistent with the above constitu-
tional provisions [Arts. II, III, XI B 1-4, XII 7] to place the
membership of an individual or congregation at risk where that
member relies on the ecclesiastical supervision and counsel of the
person called or chosen for that role or function. If an act is in fact
contrary to Article XIII of the Constitution, the member who acted
cannot be charged since he or she acted according to the advice of
his or her ecclesiastical supervisor”; and

WHEREAS, Holy Scriptures forbids church fellowship absent
complete doctrinal agreement (1 Cor. 1:10-11; 2 Cor. 6:14, 17-18);
and

WHEREAS, Holy Scriptures commands us to note and avoid
those who cause divisions and offenses among us (Rom.
16:17-18); and

WhereAS, The foregoing rulings of the Commission are con-
trary to the clear Word of God and, therefore, are divisive of church
fellowship; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Holy Scriptures are the sole rule and norm
by which all teachers and doctrines must be examined and judged
within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the aforementioned rulings of the Commission
are repugnant to the Word of God, inasmuch as they encourage
pastors and Synod officials to obey men rather than God; and be it
further

Resolved, That the aforementioned rulings of the Commission
are not binding on the congregations and Synod officers that com-
prise The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, inasmuch as they
make the discipline of any pastor or Synod officer contingent on
whether said pastor or officer has acted in accordance with the ad-
vice and approval of his “ecclesiastical supervisor” rather than
whether he has acted in accordance with the Word of God; and be
it finally

Resolved, That the Synod repudiate and disavow said rulings as _

contrary to the Word of God.
St. Peter, Snyder, NE; Immanuel, Dodge, NE

8-44

To Overturn CCM Opinion

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”; and

WHEREAS, God’s Word says we should not be those who show
“respect of persons” (Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1, 9), we should
not “make the Word of God of none effect through (human) tradi-
tions” (Mark 7:13), and we should “obey God rather than man”
(Acts 5:29); and

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions confess “‘that it is not law-
ful for a human being to repeal an obligation that is plainly a mat-
ter of divine right” (AC XXVII 24); and

WHEREAS, Martin Luther writes, “Christians can be ruled by no
other means than by God’s Word alone” (quoted by C. F. W.
Walther in Church and Ministry [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1987], p. 316); therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2004 LCMS convention overturn the CCM
ruling in question and declare it null and void.

St. Paul

Brookfield, IL

8-45

To Overrule CCM Opinion 02-2309

WHEREAS, A decision of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters (CCM) under Bylaw 3.905 d is “binding on the question
decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical convention”;
and

WHEREAS, CCM Opinion 02-2309 states that a member of the
Synod who has in fact acted contrary to Art. XIII of the Constitu-
tion, and thus is guilty of false doctrine or scandalous life, cannot
be charged with this offense if the member’s ecclesiastical super-
visor gave approval, and

Wuereas, 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, The 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.
If, Art. VI, and Art. XIII of the Constitution, among other provi-
sions of the Constitution and Bylaws; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod overrule CCM Opinion 02-2309.
Faith
Plano, TX

8-46
To Redirect Charges to Ecclesiastical Supervisor

Rationale

“Rank may have its privileges” but it also has its heavy respon-
sibilities. The essence of leadership (especially servant leadership)
must include the readiness to assume responsibility for decisions
rendered.

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
has opined that “having promised supervision and counsel, the
Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the mem-
bership of its member who, when performing his/her official du-
ties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor
designated by the Synod. It would be inconsistent with the above
constitutional provisions to place the membership of an individual
or congregation at risk where that member relies on the ecclesiasti-
cal supervision and counsel of the person and chosen for that func-
tion” (02-2309); and

WHEREAS, No “ecclesiastical supervisor” is ever above the
Word of God; and

WHEREAS, Any ecclesiastical supervisor should be ever ready
and willing to make an explanation for his advice and counsel;
therefore be it

Resolved, That any time an issue of doctrine or practice has
been called into question by doctrinal charges from individuals or
congregations and the explanation and defense of such action falls
to “ecclesiastical supervision,” such charges automatically be di-
rected to the ecclesiastical supervisor and be his responsibility to
defend; and be it further

Resolved, That if the above CCM opinion be formalized into
the LCMS Bylaws, then this same automatic referral be placed
there also.

First
Plattsmouth, NE

(Note from the President of the Synod: While it may seem to some
that the following overture (8-47) may be “materially in error or
contain apparent misrepresentation of truth or of character” (Bylaw
3.19 d), nevertheless, because it addresses the question of whether
or not certain of my actions as President of the Synod upheld or vi-
olated the Synod’s Constitution and whether or not I should be ad-
monished and/or disciplined, I have decided that it be published
and referred to the proper floor committee to be dealt with as the
committee deems appropriate.)