# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S302
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

302

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
been granted. Such action should only be taken as a final step
when it is clear that those who are being terminated after previous futile admonition have acted contrary to the confession laid
down in Article II or the conditions of membership laid down
in Article VI or have persisted in offensive conduct (Constitution, Art. XIII 1). For this reason, the Synod establishes procedures for such action, including the identification of those who
are responsible for ecclesiastical supervision of its members.
Such supervision includes not only suspension or termination
of membership but also advice, counsel, encouragement, and,
when necessary, admonition regarding teaching and/or practice. Furthermore, the procedures that may lead to termination
of membership also provide for the protection of members by
including provisions for challenging the decisions of ecclesiastical supervisors in these matters as well as provisions for restoration of membership that has been suspended or terminated.
a
Although the Constitution (see Art. VI 3 and Art. XII
7–8) deals with the “life” of ordained and commissioned
ministers of the Synod and provides for dealing with
“ungodly life” of ordained and commissioned ministers,
this does not suggest that the Synod, including any
district of the Synod, has the duty or even an opportunity
to observe the activities in the life of an individual
member of the Synod or has the means or authority
to regulate, restrict, or control those activities. The
only remedy available to the Synod in response to
improper activities in the life of such a member of the
Synod is, as is true with respect to violations of other
conditions of membership or is otherwise appropriate
under the Constitution or the Bylaws, and following the
procedures set forth in these Bylaws, to take such action
as may lead to termination of that membership and the
attendant rights and privileges.5

Article XIII of the Constitution provides the constitutional basis
for the above bylaws:
Article XIII Expulsion from the Synod

1.	Members who act contrary to the confession laid down in Article
II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI
or persist in an offensive conduct shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod.
2	Expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure
as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod.
3.	If the member expelled is a pastor or teacher in a congregation
of the Synod, such congregation, unless it has already done so,
is held to depose him from office and to deal with him in accordance with the Word of God, notwithstanding an appeal. If it
persistently refuses to do so, the respective district is to deal with
it. If all negotiations and admonitions fail of their purpose, such
congregation forfeits its membership in the Synod.
4.	Because of their expulsion, those so expelled forfeit their membership and all share in the property of the Synod. The latter
holds good also with respect to those who for any reason themselves sever their connection with the Synod.

In Article XII of the Constitution, the district president is given
ecclesiastical authority in the Constitution of the Synod: “The district president shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision over
the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained and
commissioned ministers of their district…” (Art. XII 7). “District
presidents are empowered to suspend from membership ordained
and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in accordance
with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod”
(Art. XII 8).
Any “discipline” by a district president (ecclesiastical supervisor) must be in compliance with the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod (cf. the above constitution and bylaw citations). For instance,
ecclesiastical supervision is exercised not by the individual interpre2013 Convention Workbook

tation of the ecclesiastical supervisor, not by public opinion, and not
by individuals or groups within or outside of the Synod, but by the
collective will of the congregations of the Synod in convention. This
holds true in administering the supervisory and disciplinary provisions of the Bylaws in carrying out Article XIII of the Constitution.
Ecclesiastical supervision in The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod is not determined by “contemporary situations,” “gut feelings,” “individual” judgment, personal opinion, or personal conscience, but by the collective will, judgment, and conscience of the
Synod, a human organization, as stated in its Constitution, Bylaws,
and resolutions. Such provisions in the Synod’s Constitution and
Bylaws provide not only “evangelical supervision” (Art. III 8), but
also “protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church
workers…” (Art. III 9). The Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws provide
not only for the membership requirement of “[a]cceptance of the
confessional basis of Article II” (Art. VI 1), but also for the freedom
to participate in doctrinal discussions, brotherly dissent, dispute resolution, and determining theological positions and practices.
The Synod’s covenant provides for a healthy balance of honoring
and upholding the Synod’s position while having the right to discuss
issues freely and disagree with the Synod’s position or each other in
Christian love and respect, without suspicion, slander, and violating the Eighth Commandment and without legalism, condemnation,
dissension, and politicizing the matter. The ecclesiastical supervisor
has the ministry opportunity and responsibility to assist, to support,
to facilitate, to lead, and to give advice in the balance of these two
tensions in an evangelical manner.
In conclusion, “In accordance with the confessional nature of participation in the Lord’s Supper (cf. pp. 19–23), and in agreement with
Lutheranism’s historic position, it is inappropriate to attend the Lord’s
Supper at non-Lutheran altars. Since participation in Holy Communion, scripturally and confessionally understood, entails agreement in
the Gospel and all its articles, it would not be appropriate to attend the
Lord’s Supper in a church with which such agreement is not shared
[emphasis added]” (1983 CTCR Report, Theology and Practice of
the Lord’s Supper, p. 25).
“What is said here about Lutherans in general (i.e., members of
Lutheran congregations) certainly applies also to Lutheran pastors
(emeritus or otherwise), who by virtue of their office bear a special
responsibility “to witness publicly and privately to the one and only
Gospel set forth in the Holy Scriptures (see CCM response cited
above [02-2278])” (February 12, 2010 CTCR Opinion).
However, a district president (ecclesiastical supervisor) cannot use
constitutional Article VI 2 b as the cause for an action to expel (Article
XIII) a member from the Synod for simply attending worship, Holy
Communion, a wedding, and/or a funeral in a non-LCMS church.
In Res. 8-30B, the 2010 convention of the Synod resolved to
study Article VI. Its second Whereas paragraph indicated in part
the urgency of this study: “Whereas, Concerns have been expressed
throughout the history of the Synod, including recently, about the
proper understanding and application of Article VI with respect to
the conditions or requirements for acquiring and holding or retaining
membership in the Synod.” These 2010 concerns of the convention
echo the 1981 entreaties of President Preus to give this matter our
attention. The commission urges the timely implementation of this
convention resolution including its second-last resolve paragraph:
“Resolved, That following the study, the Commission on Handbook,
in consultation and concurrence with the Synod President, the Commission on Constitutional Matters and the Council of Presidents,