# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S299
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
process of the Synod as it had previously existed. The exception
clause was not an addition but rather an integral part of an overall
formulation of dispute resolution, recognizing the limits of the authority of the church in a secular society.
The exception clause of 1.10.3 is certainly recognition of the reality that, due to the fallen nature of our world, even within the church
itself there will be conflicts which may fail to be resolved within the
church, and may ultimately need to be resolved outside the church,
even within the secular courts. In our society, our secular government
has asserted exclusive jurisdiction over some types of issues, often
involving contract law, employment duties and responsibilities, environmental regulation, and similar issues. While Christians may desire
to have those issues resolved within the Christian community rather
than through the use of secular means involving either the courts or
other processes, a Christian may not have that choice. On the other
hand, the Constitution of the United States recognizes that in certain
issues relating to theological matters, churches such as the LCMS
may retain exclusive jurisdiction regarding such issues, even to the
exclusion of the secular courts. The Synod has historically chosen to
do so, at least to the extent provided in its Constitution and Bylaws.
As part of our living in the secular world, one of the issues which
the Synod does not control is the issue of ownership of property and
contract rights. The Synod does not register deeds or titles to vehicles,
register mortgages or security interest, or otherwise become involved
or have binding jurisdiction over such issues.
Question 3: Is an entity/agency subject to participation in the Synod’s
dispute resolution process whose complete governing
control is provided for by either Synod- or district-level
appointment?
Opinion: The Synod’s dispute resolution process applies to an entity/agency created and controlled by the Synod or one of its component parts, its districts. The letter of the congregation expresses
its understanding and desire, shared by the Synod itself, that all
disputes, disagreements, and offenses which arise among members
of the body of Christ are a matter of grave concern for the whole
church. That concept is contained in the first sentence of the Preamble to the Synod’s dispute resolution process, Bylaw 1.10.1,
quoted above. While the Synod has expressed as a matter of policy
its recognition that it is desirable that all such conflicts be resolved
within the body of Christ and consistent with the Holy Scriptures,
the Synod has also recognized in its bylaws that it has no authority to impose its dispute resolution process on those who are not
members of the Synod. As such, Bylaw 1.10.2 identifies the scope
of the dispute resolution process provided in Bylaw 1.10, to apply
to “(1) members of the Synod, (2) the Synod itself, (3) a district or
an organization owned and controlled by the Synod, (4) persons
involved in excommunication, or (5) lay members of congregations
of the Synod holding positions with the Synod itself or with districts or other organizations owned and controlled by the Synod.”
Only those parties identified in Bylaw 1.10.1.2 are entitled or required to use the Synod’s dispute resolution processes as an exclusive
remedy to resolve a dispute. The third category listed, a district or
an organization owned and controlled by the Synod, requires further
discussion. A district is “Synod” in that place. An organization owned
and controlled by a district is an organization owned and controlled by
the Synod itself. A prior iteration of this bylaw included a definition
of “organizations owned and controlled by the Synod” as including
any board, commission, committee, or council of the Synod, Radio
Station KFUO, the synodwide corporate entities, all educational in-

299

stitutions owned and maintained by the Synod, and also “all districts
and incorporated church extension funds.”1
That language was stricken from a later iteration of the bylaws,
which was apparently a reflection of a general understanding that
continued inclusion was superfluous, and not a change of policy.
This is reflected particularly in the actions of the 1981 convention.
At that convention, the district CEF involved in the question was
specifically authorized by Res. 5-06A. The same convention, in Res.
5-07, made clear that the Synod considered all corporations formed
by its districts to be ultimately owned and controlled by the Synod
itself. 2 Thus, a district CEF is subject to the provisions of the Synod’s
dispute resolution process for matters involving theological, doctrinal,
or ecclesiastical issues, but would not be required to acquiesce in that
process in situations involving the exceptions described in Bylaw
1.10.3, including property disputes such as mortgage issues.
Question 4: If an agency which is governed by Synod or district
employees becomes a party involved in a conflict with
a member of the LCMS, does the Synod or governing
district also need to be included in the dispute resolution
process?
Opinion: No. The Bylaws of the Synod make no such provision or
requirement.
(Adopted Nov. 11–13, 2011)

Election of the President of the Synod (11-2592)
During the commission’s May 7–8, 2011 meeting, the Secretary
of the Synod submitted in writing a series of questions regarding
the voting process for the election of the President of the Synod as
a result of 2010 convention Res. 8-17. The commission completed
its discussion of the questions during its September 3–4 meeting and
responded as follows.
Question 1: In the case of delegates to district conventions that have
been duly elected and pre-registered by their congregations or parishes, can such delegates be included on the
voting list for President of the Synod if prevented from
attending their district conventions because of illness or
other emergency?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “no.” Bylaw 3.12.2.3 and
the resolution adopted by the 2010 convention (Res. 8-17) clearly
require delegate attendance at the previous district convention in
order to participate in the election of the President the following
year. To prevent the situation described in the question, congregations are advised to elect alternate delegates to the district convention.
Question 2: If a congregation experiences a pastoral vacancy at the
time of its district convention, the congregation sends
its lay delegate to the convention, and the vacancy is
filled after the district convention but prior to the election of the President of the Synod, can the congregation
be given opportunity to have also a pastoral vote in the
presidential election?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “no.” The bylaw requirement that the individuals, pastor and lay, who cast ballots in the
election of the President of the Synod must have been in attendance
at the previous district convention allows no exceptions. Congregations whose pastoral offices are vacant at the time of their district
conventions will not have opportunity to participate in the election
of the President of the Synod.
Question 3: If a congregation becomes a member of the Synod after its
district convention but prior to the presidential election,
thereby not having had opportunity to send delegates to
2013 Convention Workbook