# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S285
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
tions (short of the Synod itself in convention) is the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, whose opinions are binding on the question
unless and until overturned by a convention of the Synod, as indicated
by Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (c): “An opinion rendered by the commission shall
be binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by
a convention of the Synod.” In challenging the actions of a district
president through the dispute resolution process under Bylaw 1.10,
participants are given the right to request and obtain from either or
both of these bodies binding opinions on issues within their areas of
responsibility. Because of the importance of the church’s witness to
the world by the way it resolves its disputes, the results of this process
are final and binding.
The Synod has not made the Commission on Constitutional Matters a trier of facts. Instead, the Synod has provided alternative methods for addressing factual investigations necessary for the resolution
of disputes in the Synod or within congregations. Depending on the
nature of the dispute, alternatives may include dispute resolution
and fact-finding under Bylaw sections 1.10 and 2.14–2.17, Bylaws
3.8.2.7.5–3.8.2.7.9 and 3.8.3.8.5–3.8.3.8.9, as well as those circumstances where the President of the Synod or a district president, as in
Bylaw 4.4.6, may have that responsibility and authority.
Question 3: Bylaw 4.4.6 states that in the exercise of ecclesiastical supervision of congregations I may arrange for an
official visit or investigation when a controversy arises
in a congregation. What authority or powers within
my responsibility to investigate such matters (particularly when they involve doctrinal issues) do I have
to adjudicate doctrinal issues or disputes within the
congregation?
Opinion: Please refer to the answer to question 2 above. Of necessity, a district president must be able to determine who, on behalf of
the congregation, properly speaks for the congregation in the congregation’s relationship to the Synod. When internal disputes arise
and the congregation has provided an internal method for dispute
resolution, the authority of the president is limited to visitation, investigation, obtaining reports and information, and then advising,
admonishing, and conveying the collective will of the Synod and,
if necessary, bringing appropriate disciplinary measures to assure
that the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod are followed and implemented. When, however, the congregation has not
provided in advance another mechanism for the resolution of such
internal disputes, his authority is more extensive. He has the authority to investigate and review such information as may be necessary to settle the dispute, as covenanted in 1983 Res. 5-10A. He has
the authority to study, counsel, and advise how the dispute should
be settled consistent with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
of the Synod, thereby settling the dispute by presenting, interpreting, and applying the collective will of the Synod’s congregations.
The authority of a district president does not include the right to
excommunicate members of a congregation, to “call” a pastor to
serve a congregation, or to generally control the internal governance of a congregation, and, as discussed above, his actions are
subject to appeal by the congregation pursuant to the Bylaw section
1.10 processes.
(Adopted Sept. 7, 2010)

Constitutional Amendment Ratification Process
(10-2583)
In a letter dated October 19, 2010, a pastor of the Synod questioned whether the requirement for submission of constitutional
amendments to the congregations of the Synod “by means of three
announcements in the official periodical within three months after

285

the close of the convention” (Constitution, Art. XIV 3) was followed
in the ratification process of 2010 convention constitutional amendments. He questioned the interpretation of the Secretary of the Synod
that Reporter and Reporter Online may be used to satisfy the constitutional requirement, not only because such interpretation may be
wrong but also because it may “be robbing our members of a good
opportunity for informed decision making.”
Question 1: Is Constitution Art. XIV, which at the time of its
adoption according to Secretary Hartwig’s September 23, 2010, letter
referred solely to The Lutheran Witness, now to be interpreted by Bylaw
3.8.5.2.3 (2007 Handbook) to include also Reporter, even though the
Constitution speaks of a singular publication?

Opinion: For many years Der Lutheraner and its English counterpart The Lutheran Witness were considered the “official organs” or
“official synodical organs” or “official publications” of the Synod.
The 1966 Handbook (Bylaw 11.81) added for the first time: “Official reports and notices shall be published in The Lutheran Witness
Reporter.”
Additional changes were made in the 1971 Handbook, as described in its “Foreward” by Secretary Herbert Mueller:
The convention authorized certain language changes in the Constitution with the stated provision that these changes are not to be regarded
as constitutional amendments. The singular verb in Article VIII A 2 was
therefore changed to plural; “official organs” and “official publications”
were changed to “official periodicals in Article XI B 9 and Article XIV,
3 and 4; and the definite article “the” was uniformly inserted before the
word “Synod” in 82 instances. [emphasis added]

The 1971 Handbook then lists as the “Official Periodicals” of the
Synod “The Lutheran Witness, the Lutheran Witness Reporter, and
Der Lutheraner” (Bylaw 11.81). The bylaw also repeats the statement: “Official reports and notices shall be published in the Lutheran
Witness Reporter.”
In the “Foreward” to the 1975 Handbook, Secretary Mueller,
after noting the many changes made by the 1975 convention, states:
“Perhaps it should be stated that the Commission on Constitutional
Matters felt obligated, in view of the convention action with reference to the official periodicals, to change the plural to the singular in
Constitution Article XIV, paragraphs 3 and 4.” This was prompted
by one of the changes made by the 1975 convention, naming only
The Lutheran Witness as “the official periodical of the Synod.” The
Lutheran Witness was now to “include official reports and notices”
(Bylaw 11.81). When, however, the 1977 (and subsequent) handbooks again named The Lutheran Witness and Reporter as the Synod’s official periodicals, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Constitution Art. XIV
were not updated and continue to read in the singular to this day: “in
the official periodical.” Article XIV should have been updated to the
plural at that time like all of the other mentions of the periodicals of
the Synod in the Handbook, which included Constitution Art. XI 8.
It is clear, therefore, that Constitution Art. XIV, while it speaks of
“the official periodical” in the singular, is to be interpreted to speak
in the plural, given the listing of periodicals in 2007 Bylaw 3.8.5.2.3
(2010 Handbook Bylaw 3.4.3.7) where The Lutheran Witness and
Reporter are both named.
Question 2: Is Reporter Online to be considered from this time forth
to be the equivalent of Reporter for constitutional and
bylaw purposes?
Opinion: Reporter Online is now and has been since its implementation an official periodical of the Synod. As early as 1966,
Reporter was considered such an official periodical, to be used to
publish official reports and notices. This has been and continues
to be the case, except for a brief period of time following actions
taken by the 1975 convention of the Synod, as already noted in
2013 Convention Workbook