# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S360
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

360 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

procedures: (1) Express the dissent within the fellowship of peers;
(2) Then, bring the dissent to the attention of the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations; (3) Following these first two
steps, dissent may find expression as an overture to the convention
for revision or recision (Bylaw 2.39 c).

Thus, those who have joined the Synod voluntarily agree to the
basis of the fellowship, the common commitment and “walking to-
gether” as well as the synodically established procedure for the
Synod to express its fellowship and unity with one another, to ex-
press its common confession, and to clarify its common witness or
to settle doctrinal controversy. Any member who disregards the
above agreement, including the synodically established procedure
for the expression of dissent, and seeks to establish, teach, practice
and promote a “confessional statement” or statement of belief
within the fellowship that has not been adopted by the Synod it-
self, violates the very purpose, fellowship, and unity of the Synod,
is not acting in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution and By-
laws, is guilty of “offensive conduct” (Article XIII) and is subject
to the disciplinary procedures specified in the Constitution and By-
laws.

Among the resolutions that the members of the Synod are to
honor and uphold is Resolution 2-21 of the 1971 synodical con-
vention (1971 Proceedings, pp. 118-19), which states in its Pre-
amble:

The Synod, therefore, holds that every member, by virtue of his
agreement when he voluntarily joined the Synod and freely placed
himself under the provisions of the Synod’s Constitution and By-
laws, is bound by the Word of God expressed in the Synod’s reso-
lutions until it can be demonstrated that a resolution is in fact “not
in accordance with the Word of God.” Otherwise the Synod holds
that its resolutions are to be considered “of binding force if they
are in accordance with the Word of God” (Bylaw 1.09 b), and the
Synod permits no member to teach or practice in violation of a res-
olution simply on the grounds that he does not agree with it or that
it is in conflict with his private persuasion.

The object of the Synod, as stated in Article III, 1, of the Con-
stitution, is (1) to conserve and promote a unity in which all are
“united in the same mind and same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10), and
(2) to avoid schism caused by contrary doctrine (Rom. 16:17). This
purpose of the Synod is defeated when individuals are permitted to
teach in accordance with their private views, for then there can be
no such thing as a synodical position, and a meaningful corporate
confessional commitment is impossible. Formal commitment of the
Synod to a confessional base is pointless unless the Synod has the
right as a synod to apply its confessional base definitively to cur-
rent issues and thus conserve and promote unity and resist an indi-
vidualism which breeds schism....

If a member cannot for conscience’ sake accept a doctrinal res-
olution of the Synod, he has the obligation and opportunity through
mutually approved procedure to challenge such a resolution with a
view to effecting the changes he deems necessary. Failing in that,
he is completely free by reason of his wholly voluntary association
with the Synod to obey his conscience and disassociate himself
from the Synod. Meanwhile every member of the Synod is held to
abide by, act, and teach in accordance with the Synod’s resolutions.

Note: The complete text of the October 16, 1969 opinion of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, “An Opinion Regarding
Dissenting Groups and Activities Within the Synod,” follows:

AN IN REGARDING DISSENTIN'
AND ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE SYNOD

From several ‘quarters the Commission on Constitutional Matters
has received inquiries which may be summarized in the following con-
stitutional questions:

Is it ible under the Con ion of th without thi
consent of the Synod, to call inlo being organizations whose purposes
are to express dissent to the resolutions of the Synod or whose purposes
might ostensibly be in keeping with the purposes and functions of the
Synod but might in reality arrogate responsibilities which the Synod has
reserved to itself? By the same token, is it permissible for existing or-
ganizations to engage in such activities?

2004 Convention Workbook

The Commission on Constitutional Matters holds that such actions
subvert the Constitution of the Synod.

The very nature and purpose of a synodical fellowship need to be re-
stated once again. A synod is a “walking together.” The choice of the
word “synod,” derived from the Greek, is significant because it empha-
sizes the idea of unity. For good reason our church body has chosen for
itself the name: “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.” We are con-
gregations, pastors, and teachers who have decided to join hands and to
walk together.

The Preamble of the Constitution has the sub-heading: “Reason for
the Forming of a Synodical Union.” Union was the major concern in
effecting the organization of the Synod. The concepts of fellowship, to-
getherness, brotherhood, and “walking together” express the basic pur-
pose of the Synod’s existence.

The reasons given in the Preamble for forming the union are “1, The
example of the apostolic church, Acts 15:1-31,” and “2. Our Lord’s will
that the diversities of gifts should be for the common profit, 1 Cor.
12:4-31.” Once again the emphasis falls upon the idea of unity.

In Article III, Objects, the fundamental thrust of the Synod is not
only clearly stated but is given preeminence. The first purpose of the
Synod is listed as: ‘The conservation and promotion of the unity of the
true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and a united defense against schism
and sectarianism (Rom. 16:17).” The Scripture references include the
admonitions to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to
avoid all divisions, and to beware of division makers.

Objects 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 continue with this theme. All of these imply
the quest for oneness, its preservation and extension.

Objects 7 and 8 need special emphasis in view of the questions
which have been raised regarding the formation and continuation of
groups which attempt to carry out the purposes which the Synod re-
serves for itself:

7. The supervision of the ministers and teachers of Synod with re-
gard to the performance of their official duties;

8. The protection of pastors, teachers, and congregations in the
performance of their duties and the maintenance of their rights.

The Synod was organized and is maintained to carry out these ob-
jects. The congregations, pastors, and teachers who by their own free
decision have joined the Synod have done so with the determination
that the important functions described in Article III (and we would
stress especially Objects 1, 7, and 8 in view of the questions which have
been raised) should be carried out by the Synod. Any assumption of
these responsibilities by secret or open, voluntary or auxiliary, new or
established groups is disruptive of the synodical purpose and cannot be
tolerated.

Christians as well as non-Christians expect differences of opinion
and judgment to arise when people walk together. The Synod has pro-
vided for forums in which such differences can be discussed and evalu-
ated beyond the confines of the local congregation. The pastors and
teachers conferences; the circuit meetings; the synodical and District
board, commission, and committee meetings; the doctrinal supervision
and appeals procedures; and above all the conventions of the Districts
and of the Synod provide the proper channels through which the issues
of opinion and judgment are to be discussed and decided. In the absence
of a clear word of God issues must be decided by the majority principle,
applied in Christian love and with Christian restraint (Article VIII C).
When the majority will has been determined, it must be respected. Oth-
erwise life together (synod) becomes all but impossible. Discussion may
indeed continue; but it needs to be carried on with full respect for the
majority will and within the forums established by the Synod for the
preservation of the synodical unity. If additional channels for discus-
sion are needed the Synod can provide for the same in its Bylaws
through appropriate convention action.

It is incongruous for separate groups to organize for the purpose of
policing the members of the Synod; it is equally incongruous for groups
to organize for the purpose of either shaping or nullifying a decision in
an area of concern in which the Synod has reserved to itself the right
of making decisions. Where the Synod has not reserved this right to it-
self (e.g., the decision to establish orphanages, high schools, old folks
homes, hospitals), congregations and individuals have the right to ef-
fect an organization so long as its objectives and operations do not in-
terfere with the purposes and functions of the Synod. However, where
the Synod has reserved this right to itself (e.g., the administration of its
colleges and seminaries; the supervision of doctrine; the declaration of
fellowship with other church bodies), congregations and individuals
have no right under the Constitution of the Synod without the express