# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S316
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

316 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

who are members of congregations that are members of the Synod,
are not themselves members of the Synod. Since such laypersons
are not members of the Synod, they have not agreed to be bound by
the dispute resolution process of the Synod and thus waive none of
their rights by participating in the process.

While laypersons do not meet the technical definition of “mem-
ber of Synod” as defined in the Bylaws, they are nevertheless en-
couraged to participate fully in the synodical dispute resolution
process. Each person or party to a dispute is urged “by the mercies
of God to proceed with one another with ‘the same attitude that
was in Christ Jesus’ (Phil. 2:5)” (Preamble to VIII. Synodical Dis-
pute Resolution, Handbook, p. !25). For the sake of the Gospel
those who are not “members of the Synod” are invited to employ
the means Synod has provided for the resolution of disputes.

4. During LCMS Synodical Dispute Resolution (Reconciliation,
Dispute Resolution Panel, etc.), does the Congregation retain its
right of self-government?

Response to Question 4: As stated in Bylaw 8.11, a congrega-
tion retains the right of self-government it has as a member of the

Synod during the dispute resolution process: “The congregation’s
right of self-government shall be recognized.”

5. According to LCMS Synodical Dispute Resolution Procedure
Rule 27, what are the congregation’s “scriptural responsibilities
toward its member”, and what Scripture verses serve as the basis
for the congregation’s “scriptural responsibilities toward its mem-
ber”?

Response to Question 5: The Synod’s dispute resolution “Rules
of Procedure” were created as a result of 1995 Res. 7-03B, which
directed their formulation. Accordingly, the Commission can ren-
der an opinion on any aspect of the resolution that mandated the
procedures. However, interpretation of the content of such proce-
dures is beyond the authority of the Commission. Since this ques-
tion involves theology, it will more properly be directed to the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

6. Given that the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercis-
ing legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the indi-
vidual congregations right of self-government, it is but an advi-
sory body (LCMS Constitution: Article VII Relation of the Synod
to Its Members), does the Synod or its Districts or any Officer of
the Synod or Officer of Its Districts have the ecclesiastical au-
thority to not respect action(s) taken by a LCMS congregation
and to unilaterally cancel and/or declare action(s) taken by a
LCMS congregation or its Voters Assembly as illegal, non-bind-
ing, not valid, and/or of no effect?

Response to Question 6: The Commission responds that neither
the Synod, nor any of its Districts, nor any of its officers can uni-
laterally cancel an action taken by an LCMS congregation through
its voters assembly or by edict make such action non-binding, not
valid, or of no effect. If the action of the congregation is such that it
is subject to the Synod’s dispute resolution process in Chapter VII
of the Bylaws or could lead to an action to terminate the congrega-
tion’s membership in the Synod under Bylaw 2.27, the procedures
outlined in those Bylaws are the remedy available to the Synod, its
Districts, and its officers.

Bylaw 8.11 addresses the consequences of a decision rendered
under the Synod’s dispute resolution process:

The congregation’s right of self-government shall be recognized.
However, when a decision of a congregation is at issue, a Dispute Res-
olution Panel may review the decision of the congregation according to
the Holy Scriptures and shall either uphold the action of the congrega-
tion or advise the congregation to review and revise its decision. If the
congregation does not revise its decision, the other congregations of the
Synod shall not be required to respect this decision, and the District in-
volved shall take action with respect to the congregation as it may deem
appropriate.

Tt must be noted that Bylaw 8.11 applies only to those decisions
of a congregation that may be brought before a dispute resolution
panel. .

7. Does a LCMS District President have the ecclesiastical authority
to: (1) not respect, unilaterally cancel and/or declare an action
taken by the Voters Assembly of a LCMS Congregation as not
valid, and/or (2) not respect, unilaterally cancel and/or declare as

2004 Convention Workbook

not valid a meeting duly called by the Voters Assembly of a local
LCMS Congregation?

Response to Question 7: Because a District President is an offi-
cer of the Synod, the opinion to the previous question is likewise
applicable to the District President. Neither the Synod, nor any of
its Districts, nor any of its officers have any authority to cancel or
declare invalid a duly called meeting of or an action taken by the
voters’ assembly of a congregation that is a member of the LCMS.
A District President is, however, charged with the responsibility to
“give counsel” to congregations (Bylaw 4.73) when “a controversy
arises in a congregation or between two or more congregations of
the District, or when there is evidence of a continuing unresolved
problem in doctrine or practice” (Bylaw 4.75).

Adopted Sept. 14, 1999

Question re Implementation of the CCM
“Guidelines for Constitutions” (01-2222)

The chairman of a District Constitution Committee requests an
opinion regarding the importance of the inclusion of a paragraph
in congregations’ constitutions regarding called church workers.
He notes that the Commission on Constitutional Matters recom-
mends such a paragraph in its “Guidelines for Constitutions.”

Question: “What exactly is involved according to Bylaw 2.45,
c, and according to ‘Guidelines for Constitutions,’ Article 5.0?
Must a congregation have wording in its constitution saying it will
only call pastors and teachers certified by the Synod? Is it enough
for a congregation to simply refrain from making such a call even
though the church may not explicitly commit itself to calling only
endorsed workers? Must we, as a committee, refrain from recom-
mending approval of such constitutions? Or may we approve these
constitutions with a strong suggestion that they employ the wording
suggested in the synodical guidelines?”

Opinion: In its guidelines, the Commission’s explanatory para-
graph under “5.0 CALLED CHURCH WORKERS?” states, “Since
the congregation is applying for membership in the Synod or al-
ready is a member of the Synod, it is obliged to call only ordained
and commissioned workers who are members of the Synod.” This
issue, whether or not specifically addressed in a member congre-
gation’s Bylaws, is already resolved, so long as the congregation
remains a member of the Synod. By its membership, the congre-
gation has committed itself to calling only “ordained or commis-
sioned ministers who have been admitted to these respective min-
istries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth” in the
Handbook of the Synod (Bylaw 2.45, b).To do otherwise jeopar-
dizes their membership in the Synod (Bylaw 2.45, c).

A District Constitution Committee, as provided by Bylaw 2.03,
a and b, exists to review new or changed constitutions of congre-
gations “to ascertain that the provisions are in harmony with Holy
Scripture, the Confessions, and the teachings and practices of the
Synod.” It is the primary interest of the committee, therefore, to
take care that nothing in the documents they are examining is con-
trary to the above-mentioned. Beyond that, so long as a congrega-
tion’s commitment to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod is

‘made clear, it is not absolutely necessary to restate requirements of

membership contained in the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod. The District committee may, however, wish to encourage
inclusion of significant paragraphs such as the one in question into
local constitutions for the sake of clarity and availability to the
members of the congregation who often do not have copies of the
Handbook of the Synod in their possession.

Adopted May 17, 2001

Question re Eligibility for Reappointment to a
Commission (01-2223)

The Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations, on behalf of the Commission, requested a re-
sponse to the following question.

Question: “The Commission on Theology and Church Relations

at its April 26-28 meeting adopted a resolution requesting that the
Commission on Constitutional Matters give an opinion whether the