# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S300
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

300

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

the district convention, can it be allowed to participate in
the presidential election, which is to provide opportunity
to “every congregation” (Res. 8-17)?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “no” also. Because the
congregation was not able to send delegates to the district convention, it therefore is not able to satisfy the attendance requirement of
Bylaw 3.12.2.3.
(Adopted Sept. 3–4, 2011)

University Lutheran Student Center—Minneapolis
(11-2597)
In a letter dated July 13, 2011, the president of University Lutheran
Chapel of Minneapolis, Minnesota, submitted a set of questions along
with background information for consideration by the commission.
The questions, pertaining to a 1963 resolution adopted by the former
Minnesota District of the Synod which created the Minnesota North
and Minnesota South Districts, were submitted as follows:
1. Does an adopted resolution by a district in convention
pertaining to its division into two or more districts that includes
an agreement as to how a piece of property is to be used for the
benefit of the newly formed districts constitute an agreement
between the newly formed districts?
2. If the aforementioned constitutes an agreement between
districts, is that agreement binding?
3. Is it legitimate for a district to unilaterally change, either
explicitly or effectively, an agreement it has with one or more
other districts if the agreement does not explicitly grant the
right to do so?
4. May a district that holds title to a real property that by
agreement between it and one or more other districts is to
be used to serve each of the districts in question dispose of
the property without first obtaining either (a) the permission/
approval of the other district(s) to the sale or (b) the approval
of the other district(s) to a change in the agreement?
5. If an agreement exists specifically and only due to the
ownership of a specific piece of [real] property, would selling
the property effectively change/terminate the agreement?
6. If an agreement exists between two or more districts by district
convention action, may that agreement be changed, either
explicitly or effectively, without first obtaining the approval of
a convention of each of the districts in question?
Opinion: The questions presented to the Commission on Constitutional Matters assume the existence of an agreement in the resolution in question. There is no such agreement within that resolution.
The commission finds nothing further in the resolution that it can
interpret in response to the questions asked.
(Adopted Sept. 3–4, 2011)

Interpretation of Constitution Art. VI 2 b (11-2598)
In a letter addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters
dated July 11, 2011, a pastor of the Synod submitted four questions
requiring an interpretation of Synod Constitution Art. VI 2 b and
relevant Synod bylaws (such as Bylaw 2.14.1) with respect to ecclesiastical supervision.
The letter included the background of the February 12, 2010 opinion of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR)
entitled “Response to ‘Request for CTCR Opinion Concerning Continued Eligibility of an Inactive Emeritus Member Under Article VI
of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.’”
A summary paragraph of the CTCR opinion stated:
It is the opinion of the CTCR that the meaning of the phrase “taking
part in” within the context of Article VI 2 b is a matter of interpretation

2013 Convention Workbook

based upon the original intent of our Synod’s fathers when they drafted
the Constitution. Its potential theological meanings are varied, as noted
above. Its particular usage in the context of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is a question, therefore, that can be
rightly decided only by those who are charged with the responsibility
for such interpretation, the Commission on Constitutional Matters.

The four questions were submitted to the Commission on Constitutional Matters in view of the CTCR opinion (the full February
12, 2010 opinion is available on the Commission on Constitutional
Matters Web page: http://www.lcms.org/ccm/).
Upon request of the commission, a portion of the first day of the
commission meeting was devoted to a conversation with Dr. Joel
Lehenbauer, Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations (CTCR), regarding his commission’s February 12,
2010 opinion and a more recent September 8, 2011 related opinion,
“CTCR Response to Request from Rocky Mountain District President.” Also discussed were a paper entitled “Historical Background
and Interpretation of Article VI.2 of the Constitution of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod” by Dr. Gerhard Bode of the St. Louis
seminary and other related documents and former Commission on
Constitutional Matters opinions.
Question 1: Is reception of the Lord’s Supper in an unofficial and
private capacity considered “[t]aking part in the services
and sacramental rites” of a congregation, as that phrase
is used in Article VI, section 2 b of the Constitution?
Opinion: No, reception of the Lord’s Supper, by itself, does not
constitute “[t]aking part in the services and sacramental rites” of a
congregation, as that phrase is used in Article VI, paragraph 2 b of
the Constitution. In so answering, it is assumed that the intention
of this question is the same question that was asked of the CTCR:
“Is reception of the Lord’s Supper ‘[t]aking part in the services and
sacramental rites’ of a congregation, as that phrase is used in Article VI Section 2 b of the Constitution?”
This opinion is not based on whether reception of the Lord’s Supper occurs “in an unofficial and private capacity,” as that distinction
is not found in the Constitution. The decision is also not based on
whether the individual members of the Synod (ordained ministers
and commissioned ministers) are active or inactive, as the constitutional requirements of membership are the same for both categories
of members. Instead, this opinion is based on the constitutional “[c]
onditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod.” And
as indicated in the CTCR opinion, it is a matter of the interpretation
of the phrase “‘taking part in’ within the context of Article VI 2 b…”
The immediate context of “[t]aking part in the services and sacramental rites” is Article VI 1 and 2 as follows:
Article VI Conditions of Membership
Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are
the following:
1. Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II.
2.	Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description,
such as:
a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church;
b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession;
c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.

The last two words of paragraph 2, “Renunciation of unionism
and syncretism of every description, such as” [emphasis added] indicate that what follows in the three subparagraphs of paragraph 2
are examples of that which is prohibited in the opening sentence of
paragraph 2. Subparagraph b prohibits a member of the Synod from