# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S349
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

|

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 349

of a Dispute Resolution Panel is binding upon the parties to that
dispute subject to request for review. The same bylaw provides that
the decision of a Review Panel is “binding upon the parties to that
dispute and not be subject to further appeal” (emphasis added). Un-
less the bylaw is amended by a convention of the Synod, a con-
vention of the Synod cannot take any action relative to a final de-
cision rendered in a matter in dispute.

Question 7: In the event of such intervention by the President, if
in his opinion he believes that either the Constitution, the Bylaws,
a resolution of the Synod, or the doctrinal position of the Synod,
or that the decision will have “‘... an immediate and ongoing nega-
tive impact on the Synod...,” does the President have to ask for an
opinion from either the CCM or the CTCR?

Opinion: There is no requirement in the Constitution or Bylaws
of the Synod that requires the President to seek input from the
CCM or CTCR.

Question 8: In the event that a District President is involved in
the dispute resolution process because he has suspended a member
of the Synod (individual or congregation) and the Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel and the Dispute Review Panel have sustained the District
President, may the President of the Synod call their decision up for
review and request them to reverse their decision because he is per-
sonally convinced, without having personally conducted the inves-
tigation required of the District President, that they have not acted
in accord with the Constitution, Bylaws, doctrinal position of the
Synod, resolutions of a convention of the Synod, or that their deci-
sion will have “. . . an immediate and ongoing negative impact on
the Synod”?

Opinion: The answer to this question is: No. See the opinion to
Questions 5 and 6 above.

Question 9: The opinion of the CCM states “Jn fulfilling his du-
ties, the President would normally be expected to rely on the pro-
visions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws to correct errors occur-
ring....”” Does this mean that he is not required to do so? Does this
opinion also apply to the President with respect to the other By-
laws of the Synod, that he is “normally expected” to abide by them,
but is not required to do so?

Opinion: The opinion to Question 1 above addresses this ques-
tion. Each opinion of this Commission is in response to a specific
question and is applicable to that question alone. The partial] sen-
tence from opinion 02-2282 quoted in this question applies to the
interaction of Article XI B of the Constitution and Bylaw 2.27 c
and nothing more.

Question 10: When a District President is involved in the dis-
pute resolution process, may he, the Board of Directors of his Dis-
trict, his congregation, or any other group of persons conduct a
public relations campaign to gain support for him in the Synod and
in the public media? May they also solicit contributions from all
the congregations of the Synod for a “Defense Fund”?

Opinion: Again this Commission is called upon to issue an
opinion regarding a fact situation that arises because there has been
a violation of Bylaw 8.21 e and its prohibition of publicity, and a
violation of the opinions of this Commission on the topic of “pub-
licity” which are binding on the members of the Synod unless and
until such opinions are overruled by a convention of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.905 d). The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are
silent on the fact situations of this question. However, Rule 26 f of
the dispute resolution Rules of Procedure is a restatement of Bylaw
8.21 e but then adds that the reconciler or Dispute Resolution Panel
shall bring to the attention of the parties any violation of the rule
prohibiting publicity.

Question 11: If the President of the Synod is convinced that an
opinion of the CCM will have “an immediate and ongoing nega-
tive impact on the Synod,” may he call up for review, ask them to
reverse their decision, and if this is not done, report in a pastoral
letter to the Synod that the CCM has violated the Constitution, By-
laws, doctrinal position of the Synod, or a resolution of the Synod?
If this is true, must the President also insist that the opinion of the
CCM not be followed, since according to the opinion of the CCM,
“Subsection 1 (Art. XI B 1-4) imposes upon him duties regarding
the supervision of the doctrine and administration of all officers of

the Synod. Subsection 2 requires that he sees to it that all act in ac-
cordance with the Synod’s Constitution and admonish all who de-
part from it?

Opinion: Article XI B 1 states that the President has the supervi-
sion regarding the doctrine and administration of all officers of the
Synod, all such as are employed by the Synod, the individual Dis-
tricts of the Synod and all District Presidents. The Commission on
Constitutional Matters or its individual voting members are not offi-
cers or employees of the Synod and thus do not come under the pro-
visions of Article XI B 1 and 2. The President may publicly comment
on the opinions of this Commission, but Bylaw 3.905 states that its
opinions shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it
is overruled by a synodical convention.

Question 11 a: “Does resolution 3.07A (1991 Convention Pro-
ceedings pp 137, 138) adopt the CTCR document, “The Lutheran
Understanding of Church Fellowship” (1991 CW pp 375-85), to-
gether with the CTCR response (1991 CW pp 48-51) as the official
doctrinal position of the Synod?”

Opinion: Resolution 6-03 of the 1962 convention of the Synod
established the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
Among the functions and duties assigned to the Commission were
the following:

3. Consider and seek to adjust matters concerning which differences
of opinion have arisen in the Synod and which have been referred
to it by the President and Vice-Presidents. The functions of this
commission shall be strictly advisory in this capacity, along the
line of brotherly effort in the interest of divine truth,....

7. Advise and prepare special studies in theological matters, both of
an internal and external nature, on request of the President of the
Synod, the synodical officers, executives, boards, commissions,
and committees;....

In the course of time it became necessary for the Commission
on Constitutional Matters to clarify the role of the CTCR in the life
of the Synod. In an April 29, 1983 opinion (Ag. 1606, A,B,C,D)
the Commission stated the following:

The bylaws on the role of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations are quite clear. The Commission is to issue studies for the
guidance of the synodical membership. Its proposals may be challenged.

If any proposal of the Commission is to become the official posi-
tion of the Synod, a detailed procedure, outlined in Bylaw 1.03,° is to be
followed. Until the Synod has taken action, a proposal of the Commis-
sion is of an advisory nature for study and guidance and not binding on
the membership of the Synod. It should also be noted that those who
dissent should proceed by following the proper avenues as set forth in
Bylaws 1.03° and 1.19 e’.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters finds that the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations itself has attempted to make this clear,
but its proposals continue to be regarded by many as setting forth the offi-
cial position of the Synod, which is an erroneous conclusion.

The Synod in convention has recognized and promoted the use
of studies of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
variously. It has in some fashion commended these studies for:

* study (1967 Res. 2-02; 1977 Res. 3-35; 1983 Res. 3-11; 1983
Res. 3-12; 1983 Res. 3-13; 1983 Res. 3-14; 1986 Res. 3-19; 1992
Res. 3-01; 1992 Res. 3-15; 1992 Res. 3-17; 1992 Res. 3-18; 1995
Res. 3-21; 1998 Res. 3-23; 2001 Res. 3-07A)

* guidance (1967 Res. 2-02; 1975 Res. 3-05; 1983 Res. 3-14; 1986
Res. 3-03; 1995 Res. 3-20; 2001 Res. 3-07A)

reference (1975 Res. 3-05; 1986 Res. 3-03; 1992 Res. 3-15)

¢ discussion (1967 Res. 2-02)

¢ direction (1992 Res. 3-17)

* response (1977 Res. 3-35; 1983 Res. 3-12; 1983 Res. 3-13; 1992
Res. 3-18)

* continued use (2001 Res. 3-07A)

* as a tool (1992 Res. 3-01).

Several studies were “adopted” as synodical documents for ref-
erence and guidance (1967 Res. 2-13) as presented by the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations (1965 Res. 2-03; 1965
Res. 2-25). Only one statement, A Statement of Scripture and Doc-

2004 Convention Workbook