# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S358
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

358 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

any Official or entity of the Synod to be challenged under Chapter
VIII. Such was not the intent of Chapter VIII, as described therein.

Adopted April 8, 2003

The President of the Synod and the Provisions
of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws (02-2325)

The President of the Synod, in a December 31, 2002 e-mailed
letter, noting that from time to time “individual members of the
Synod express profound disagreement with the President of the
Synod regarding decisions made or actions taken in the regular
course of the fulfillment of duties and responsibilities of his office,”
submitted the following question to the Commission:

Question: Since the CCM has recognized the responsibility for
ecclesiastical supervision given to the President of Synod, and
since the President of Synod is responsible to the Synod in con-
vention, and since the CCM has already recognized the potential
for the President of Synod to be “harassed and hampered in the car-
rying out of his duties” by provisions of the Bylaws, and since the
CCM has noted that “the provisions of the Constitution and By-
laws...are far from clear on the issue presented” [Opinion 01-
2240], is the President of Synod subject to the provisions of Chap-
ter VIII of the Bylaws when the complaints filed against him arise
from his actions as President of the Synod.”

Opinion: The President of the Synod is not subject to imple-
mentation of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws when complaints are filed
against him that pertain to the exercise of his rights, powers, and
duties of ecclesiastical or doctrinal supervision (Art. XI B and
Bylaw 3.101). See also the Commission’s responses to question 3
of Opinion 02-2309.

The Preamble to Chapter VIII of the Bylaws does provide, how-
ever, that “when disputes, disagreements, or offenses arise among
members of the body of Christ, it is a matter of grave concern for
the whole church (paragraph 1). It encourages that “individuals,
congregations, and various entities and agencies within the
Synod....proceed with one another with ‘the same attitude that was
in Christ Jesus’ (Phil. 2:5).” Bylaw 8.01, by providing that “this
procedure is established to resolve, in a God-pleasing manner, dis-
putes that involve as parties, members of the Synod” as well as its
entities, includes also the President of the Synod “whether the dis-
pute involves only a difference of opinion without personal ani-
mosity or is one which involves ill will and sin which requires re-
pentance and forgiveness.”

Therefore, while the President of the Synod is not subject to im-
plementation of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws when complaints are
filed against him that pertain to the exercise of his rights, powers,
and duties of ecclesiastical or doctrinal supervision (Art. XI B and
Bylaw 3.101), he like every other member of the Synod is subject
to implementation of Chapter VII when other “‘disputes, disagree-
ments, or offenses arise among members of the body of Christ”
(Preamble, paragraph 1). Care should be taken in its administration
that the dispute resolution process is not used to harass or hamper
anyone in the carrying out of his or her duties.

Adopted Jan. 20-21, 2003

Voting Rights of Congregations (03-2327)

A retired pastor of the Synod, in a letter dated January 14, 2003,
recalled how District convention delegate representation in dual or
multiple parish situations was handled during his years of active
ministry: “the lay delegates were chosen alternately by one of the
congregations or the other.” He asked a series of related questions:

Questions: Is the term “‘parish” a synonym for congregation, or is
a distinction to be made between them? Was [my previous experi-
ence] the correct procedure, or should each congregation have had the
right to send a delegate? If each congregation holds membership in
the Synod, by what right can a congregation be deprived of a separate
vote by being the member of a parish with two congregations served
by one pastor?

Opinion: In a May 3-4, 1985 ruling (Ag. 1748), the Commis-
sion ratified an opinion that had been offered by the Secretary of
the Synod regarding the voting rights of congregations at District

2004 Convention Workbook

conventions when several congregations form a dual or multiple
parish, namely, “that a multiple parish has only two votes, that of
the pastor who serves the parish and a lay delegate chosen by the
parish.”

This opinion took into consideration earlier versions of the
Handbook that had provided a definition of the term “‘parish,” e.g.,
“If a pastor serves two or more congregations, these shall be re-
garded as one parish and shall be entitled to only one lay vote”
(1963 Handbook, Bylaw 3.09). The term therefore refers to a dual
or multiple congregation arrangement served by the same pastor
and is not synonymous with “congregation.” As such, two or more
congregations served by one pastor share the right of representa-
tion by one lay delegate and one pastoral delegate to a District con-
vention.

Adopted Jan. 20-21, 2003

Additional Confessional Statements (03-2328)

In a letter addressed to the Secretary of the Commission dated
January 17, 2003, an ordained minister of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod asked the following series of questions:

1. Do LCMS pastors or congregations violate the conditions of
membership in the Synod if they adopt a “confessional state-
ment” or invite LCMS members to join them in a common con-
fession of this statement?

2. If they practice church fellowship only with those who sub-
scribe to that “confessional statement,” are they practicing se-
lective fellowship?

3. Would the above action and practice in a sense be a “church
within a church—a synod within the Synod,” and would they
be wrongfully “disfellowshiping” those members of the Synod
who accept 2001 convention Resolution 3-07A while rejecting
the “confessional statement” of this group?

4. If such a new “confessional statement” is permitted in the
LCMS to define a particular group with whom they will fel-
lowship or refuse to fellowship, have they formed a synod
within the Synod?

5. If such a group with a confession that binds them to some and ex-
cludes others is permitted in the Synod, how will Synod members
and congregations be informed whether they want to be in fel-
lowship with this group or not? How will LCMS members know
that they have been ‘“‘disfellowshiped” by other members who
have formed a confessional group of their own? If the Synod al-
lows this group to organize its own synod or fellowship group,
how many more can the Synod allow to become organized? —s,

6. If a congregation adopts the “confessional statement” in ques-
tion, which excludes LCMS members from their fellowship, is
this in violation of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws and
2001 Resolution 3-07A?

Opinion: Questions 2 through 4 should be referred to the Com-
mission on Theology and Church Relations. The Commission on
Constitutional Matters is not responsible for interpreting the re-
ferred-to “confessional statement” or for judging its theological
content and implications. The following opinion is an answer to the
concerns raised especially in questions 1, 5, and 6 regarding the
use of confessional statements in addition to those formally adopted
by the Synod and as a condition of membership or fellowship in
the Synod.

The conditions of membership in the Synod are contained in
Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI requires acceptance of
the confessional basis of Article II of the Constitution. Bylaw 1.09
describes the authority of the Synod, retained to its corporate self,
to adopt doctrinal resolutions and statements that seek to clarify the
Synod’s corporate confession and understanding of doctrinal is-
sues. Dissent from those doctrinal resolutions and statements is
governed by Bylaw 2.39 c.

The question is unclear as to whether the “confessional state-
ment” proposed to be adopted by a member is consistent with a
doctrinal position of the Synod or is a doctrinal position that has
not been addressed by the Synod as a whole. If the “confessional
statement” which is proposed were consistent with a doctrinal po-