# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S307
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 307

ical convention. The Commission on Constitutional Matters concurs
with that response which is found on page 67 of the 1992 Convention
Workbook.

Question 4: The last sentence of Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9)
seems to give [a] District a broad brush to implement
its own interpretation of bylaws and consequential
punishments for congregations who do not implement
Dispute Resolution Panel recommendations. Could [a]
District suspend [the congregation] for not accepting
the interpreted (sic) as binding recommendations of a
Dispute Resolution Panel? Could [the congregation]
expect that expulsion to stand as an “appropriate” re-
sponse, according to Bylaw 8.11?

Opinion: The process of suspension under Bylaw 2.13.5ff (for-
merly Bylaw 2.25) occurs as a result of an action to terminate
membership. The process of expulsion previously contained in
Bylaw 2.27 was replaced by action of the 2004 convention, and the
applicable section of the Handbook now is Bylaw section 2.14. It is
the responsibility of the district president and not the Commission
on Constitutional Matters to investigate and evaluate facts that
could lead to the expulsion of a member, and to determine whether
to initiate that process to do so. The Commission is not a fact-find-
ing body and is not authorized to answer the question as posed.

Question 5: On the basis of Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9), does
[a] District have to take any action other than to notify
other District congregations that they are not bound by
[the congregation’s] decision?

Opinion: As suggested above, the response of the district to the sit-
uation is left to its discretion. At the very least, it would be antici-
pated that the district would convey information to other congre-
gations potentially affected by the subject congregation’s actions,
to inform them of their right not to respect the subject congrega-
tion’s actions.

Question 6: Our congregation] has made a good faith request for a
transfer to [another] district, but our compliance with
Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9) and the binding inter-
pretation of Dispute Resolution Panel recommenda-
tions have been cited as the reasons not to consider our
request. Can the CCM explain, on the basis of Bylaw
8.11, why [the congregation] should not have her re-
quest considered and honored by the district board of
directors?

Opinion: Bylaw 4.1.1.4 (formerly Bylaw 4.03 d) allows transfers
between districts upon the mutual approval of the respective dis-
trict boards of directors. The Bylaws do not provide for the review
of districts’ decisions by the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters.

Adopted March 17, 2005

Dissent from Doctrinal Resolutions (05-2418)

A pastor of the Synod, in a February 14, 2005 e-mailed letter,
quoted a portion of the second resolve of 2004 convention Resolu-
tion 3-08A, “To Affirm the Conclusions of the 1994 CTCR Report:
The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices”:
“That the Synod affirm that women on the basis of the clear teach-
ing of Scripture...may serve in humanly established offices in the
church [i.e. president, vp, elder].” He then stated that “the constitu-
tions of many of our churches, once approved by the CCM, forbid
or limit the service of women from the same offices here refer-
enced, and do so on the basis of Scripture as well (citing arguments
from the Order of Creation vs. the ‘humanly established argument
of 8-01 A)” and asked the following series of questions:

Question: How do we reconcile our congregations and our Synod’s
now Official position from completely opposing posi-
tions on the role of women when they both appeal to
Scripture as the basis and authority for their positions?
How can a congregation hold to a constitution that is
clearly now opposed to an official decision of the con-
vention of the Synod (i.e., it forbids what the Synod de-
clares scriptural and right)? Is it enough to offer a “Sam-
ple Paragraph for Congregational Constitutions” that

now overturns what many of our churches have con-
fessed, failing to recognize that many of them will still
hold to the opposing position and reject this other posi-
tion as contrary to Scripture?

Opinion: It should be noted that the introductory paragraph to the
above questions contains several inaccuracies. First, its partial quo-
tation from the convention resolution’s second resolve misleads
when it applies a statement (“women on the basis of the clear
teaching of Scripture”) to a later phrase in the resolution (‘may
serve in humanly established offices in the church...”) when the
statement was in fact applied in the resolution to an earlier phrase
(‘may not serve in the office of pastor...”). Second, the statement,
“constitutions of many of our churches, once approved by the
CCM,” is not accurate in that the CCM does not approve the con-
stitutions of congregations. Such approval is the responsibility of
district boards of directors with the assistance of district constitu-
tion committees. Finally, the paragraph misidentifies Resolution 3-
O8A, referring to it as “8-01A.”

It should also be noted that the questions that have been asked
appear to indicate a misunderstanding of the convention action by
assuming that the decision of the convention overtums the constitu-
tions of those congregations that do not make the changes allowed
by the convention action. In fact, Resolution 3-08A only permits
and does not require congregations to allow women to serve in hu-
manly established offices.

The questions asked do, however, raise an appropriate concern,
i.e., whether the convention resolution is in accordance with the
Word of God. If a congregation or other member of the Synod be-
lieves that a decision of the Synod is not in accordance with the
Word of God, opportunity exists within the structure of the Synod
to express formal dissent to decisions of conventions. That process
is described in Bylaw 1.8.2 (2004 Handbook) as follows:

Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed
first within the fellowship of peers and then brought to the attention of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding ex-
pression as an overture to the convention calling for revision or reci-
sion. While the conscience of the dissenter shall be respected, the con-
sciences of others, as well as the collective will of the Synod, shall also
be respected.

Adopted March 17, 2005

Explanation of the Term,
“Own Personal Knowledge” (05-2420)

In a letter dated February 16, 2005, a pastor of the Synod asked
a series of questions in his “on-going quest to understand Resolu-
tion 8-01A as passed by [the] synodical convention in 2004.” His
questions pertained to the definition provided for the phrase “own
personal knowledge” by Bylaw 2.14.2 (1) (2004 Handbook, p. 63).

Question 1: If I were to witness a brother pastor participating in a
syncretistic or unionistic worship service on television,
or on a video recording of such service, does this fit
the definition of “own personal knowledge”? Please
provide explanation with your answer.

Question 2: In order to charge a brother pastor with adultery, does
seeing him leave a motel room with a known prosti-
tute fit the definition of “own personal knowledge,” or
do I need to be in the room and witness sexual activity
first hand before I can claim a “personal witness to the
alleged violation?” Please provide explanation with
your answer.

Question 3: Could you please articulate a clear and definitive defi-
nition of: “A personal witness to the alleged viola-
tion”?

Opinion: The questions posed relating to what one has seen on tele-

vision and to what one has personally witnessed (a pastor leaving a

motel room with an inappropriate companion) appear to be based

upon a misunderstanding of Resolution 8-01A and Bylaw 2.26,

renumbered 2.14 in the 2004 Handbook). The term “own personal

knowledge” appears only in the context of a district president’s re-
sponsibility as one having supervision to, when appropriate, com-
mence a proceeding to expel a congregation or individual from

2007 Convention Workbook