# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S308
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

308 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

membership in the Synod (Bylaws 2.14.4, 2.15.4, and 2.17.4). The
bylaws in question make clear that such an action can be based
upon information contained either in a written complaint (accusa-
tion) or upon (facts) evidence witnessed by the district president
himself.

Bylaw 2.14 (1) further defines “own personal knowledge” as not
including “second-hand or hearsay information.” “Own personal
knowledge” can therefore constitute either direct or circumstantial
evidence. Facts can be proved by either direct or circumstantial ev-
idence or by a combination of both.

Adopted March 17, 2005

Use of Robert’s Rules of Order (05-2421)

In a March 2, 2005 e-mailed letter an LCMS pastor requested
an answer to two questions with the following introductory infor-
mation:

In the November 2004 meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board
voted 5 to 9 not to “seek legal remedy through the courts of the State of
Missouri to clarify its authority according to the Articles of Incorpora-
tion, Constitution, and Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod.”

The minutes of the Board which are posted on the Synod’s Web site
say: “After lengthy discussion, the chair called the question and the mo-
tion failed (Yes: 5; No: 9).”

Since the minutes of the Board do not reflect who on the Board
voted to oppose this motion and who supported it, it is impossible to
ascertain who the five members were who were in violation of ]
Corinthians 6. It is also impossible to know how to hold individuals ac-
countable for their actions on the Board when their individual actions
are not reported to the Synod.

In light of the above information, the pastor asked for opinions
in response to the following two questions.

Question 1: Is it proper for any board of the Synod to use Robert's
Rules of Order in order to veil an action that is con-
trary to Holy Scriptures?

Opinion: The function of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters is to “interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolu-
tions upon the written request of a member...” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2).
Since this question requests an opinion regarding the content of
Robert's Rules of Order, the Commission chooses not to respond,
since such matter is not included in its functions.

Question 2: If this motion had passed, would it have been in viola-
tion of | Corinthians 6?

Opinion: The Commission is not responsible for the interpretation
of passages of Holy Scripture. Such questions should be addressed
to the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
See also Opinion #1 above.

Adopted March 17, 2005

Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements (04-2416)

In a December 14, 2004 letter, the Executive Director of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), acting
on behalf of his Commission, forwarded four overtures (7-93, 7-
94, 7-95, and 7-96) that had been submitted to the 2004 conven-
tion of the Synod and placed by a floor committee into Omnibus
Resolution A for referral to the CTCR. In his letter he stated that in
the opinion of the CTCR, “the concerns raised in the overtures
would be more properly considered by the Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters.”

The Commission noted that the omnibus resolution containing
the four overtures had not been adopted by the convention, thereby
relieving the Commission of bylaw responsibility to provide an
opinion. However, the Commission did discuss pertinent back-
ground materials and resources and agreed that the concerns raised
have value and beg further response from a future convention of
the Synod. The Secretary was instructed to respond by letter to the
CTCR, the letter to include a copy of this paragraph of the min-
utes. A copy of the letter and copies of the convention overtures
are also to be forwarded to the President of the Synod, with copies

2007 Convention Workbook

of the letter also to be provided to the parties who originally sub-
mitted the overtures to the convention.

Adopted April 18-19, 2005

Interpretation of Convention
Resolution 2-08A (05-2419)

In a February 15, 2005 letter, the pastors of two circuits of a
district of the Synod asked a series of questions regarding LCMS
2004 Resolution 2-08A, “To Commend Preaching and Teaching
Creation.” After lengthy discussion, the Commission responded to
the questions as follows, recommending that the questions also be
re-directed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
without reference to LCMS 2004 Resolution 2-08A.

Question 1: Does LCMS 2004 Resolution 2-08A equate taxonomic
species with the created kinds of Genesis, chapter |?

Opinion: Since the term “taxonomic species” does not occur in
Resolution 2-08A, this question as asked is outside of the Commis-
sion’s responsibility to interpret the resolutions of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.9.2.2).

Question 2: Does this resolution declare fixity of species to be bib-
lical revelation and doctrine? If so, how is the con-
firmed appearance of new species to be understood and
explained in agreement with Scripture?

Opinion: Since the term “fixity of species” does not occur in Reso-
lution 2-08A, this question as asked is also outside of the Commis-
sion’s responsibility to interpret the resolutions of the Synod.

Question 3: Does this resolution bind the educational institutions
and agencies of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod and the Synod’s members to use of the equivo-
cal terms microevolution and macroevolution?

Opinion: This resolution does not bind the Synod’s educational in-
stitutions, that is, its colleges, universities, and seminaries, to the
use of the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” (“agen-
cies of the Synod” does not include early childhood programs, ele-
mentary schools, and high schools unless they are directly associ-
ated with one of the Synod’s colleges, universities, or
seminaries—see paragraph (a) of Bylaw 1.2.1). The resolution does
require that the Synod’s educational institutions “properly distin-
guish between micro and macro evolution and affirm the scriptural
revelation that God has created all species ‘according to their
kinds.’”

Question 4: If the answers to the foregoing questions are negative,
how may the Synod’s members and educational insti-
tutions and agencies rightly judge the faithfulness of
their teaching in relation to this resolution? How
should this resolution be interpreted and applied?

Opinion: Faithfulness of teaching and application of resolutions are
matters of ecclesiastical supervision in our Synod and are the re-
sponsibility of its President and district presidents (Constitution
Art. XI B 4, XII 7 and 9 a; Bylaws 1.2.1 (f), 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.1.1,
3.3.1.2 (a), 4.4.2, 4.4.5, ef al.).

Question 5: How might this resolution be clarified and improved

by the Synod in future conventions?
Opinion: Overtures may be submitted to conventions of the Synod
to offer clarification or improvement for resolutions previously
adopted by the Synod (Bylaw 3.1.6.2). It is not the responsibility of
the Commission to suggest such actions but to “examine all reports
and overtures to the Synod...to determine their agreement in con-
tent and language with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.9.2.2.1).

Adopted April 18-19, 2005

Clarification of Resolution 8-01A (05-2422)

In a letter dated March 14, 2005, written on behalf of the pastors
of two visitation circuits, a pastor of the Synod asked clarification
regarding specific issues associated with 2004 convention Resolu-
tion 8-01A, “To Amend Bylaws on Ecclesiastical Supervision and
Dispute Resolution.” Quoting from Bylaws 2.14.3 (c) and 2.14.7.7