# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S307
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

307

congregations, pastors, and teachers who have decided to join hands and
to walk together.

Synod can provide for the same in its Bylaws through appropriate convention action [emphasis added].

The Preamble of the Constitution has the sub‑heading: “Reason for
the Forming of a Synodical Union.” Union was the major concern in
effecting the organization of the Synod. The concepts of fellowship,
togetherness, brotherhood, and “walking together” express the basic
purpose of the Synod’s existence.

Disparate and alien avenues within the Synod such as withholding
funds, shunning one another, failure to relate to one another (disassociate with, exclude one another) and failure to discuss disagreements
and differences with one another as well as refusal to meet together,
refusal to commune or commune with another while having no desire,
decision, or action to carry out the mutually accepted provision of dispute/conflict resolution (Bylaw 1.10), are divisive, un-brotherly and
are themselves destructive of the fellowship or a “walking together”
and “militate against the essential unity intended by the structure of
the Synod as provided in its Constitution and Bylaws” (cf. October,
1966 CCM Opinion).
Marking or characterizing its life together, the fellowship of the
Synod has responsibly and lovingly provided an avenue of dissent
(Bylaw 1.8) which is “brotherly,” expresses the dissent with the “fellowship” of peers and respects the “collective” will of the Synod. In
referring to the Synod provision of “dissent,” November, 2005 CCM
Opinion 05-2444 states: “Dissent that is “brotherly” will always regard another as a brother or being in a “brotherhood” (cf. reference to
“brotherhood” in Bylaw 1.10.1.1) and will treat and relate to others
in the “fellowship” as “brothers” [emphasis added].
In the Synod bylaw provision of “Dispute Resolution” (Bylaw
section 1.10), the Preamble states:

The reasons given in the Preamble for forming the union are “1. The
example of the apostolic church, Acts: 15:1–31,” and “2. Our Lord’s
will that the diversities of gifts should be for the common profit, 1 Cor.
12:4–31.” Once again the emphasis falls upon the idea of unity [emphases added].

United with Jesus Christ, the members of the Synod have bound
themselves to oneness of doctrine and confession, and oneness of life,
mission, purpose and support. The members have bound themselves
together in common to the Word of God, which alone determines and
establishes the doctrine and mission of the church. The members have
bound themselves together in common to adopt doctrinal resolutions
and doctrinal statements in order to determine and to declare its collective understanding of what the Scriptures teach. The members have
bound themselves together in common to convince and persuade one
another by the power of God’s Word.
And as such, in joining together with one another, the members
of the Synod have bound themselves together in common to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod and also its resolutions if they are
in accordance with the Word of God and if they appear applicable as
far as the condition of the congregation is concerned. The members
have bound themselves together in common to honor and uphold the
collective will of Synod as expressed in its convention resolutions
and to carry out any brotherly dissent or dispute resolution according
to the provisions set forth by the fellowship of the Synod.
Question 3: Convinced that we really are in a declared state of fellowship with one another by virtue of our synodical
membership, therefore, must we either accept our brethren as they are (and commune them and commune with
them) and show that those brethren are in error, or depart
from them, lest we break the unity of the synod?
Opinion: By virtue of having voluntarily “joined together to form
the Synod and relate to one another through it” (Bylaw 1.3.1) and,
therefore, by virtue of its fellowship being compelled by love for
each other, members of the Synod accept the “brethren” (“brotherhood”) “as they are” (cf. above answers to questions 1 and 2, which
reflect the implication of “members/membership” or “brethren”).
Together with accepting the “brethren,” members of the Synod
also accept the responsibility for carrying out the established provisions within the fellowship of the Synod to resolve brotherly dissent (Bylaw 1.8) and disputes (Bylaw 1.10) and to carry out any
expulsion as set forth in the Bylaws (cf. Constitution, Art. XIII and
Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17).
These provisions or avenues have been established by the members of the Synod to preserve and promote the unity of the Synod so
that such unity may not wither, waste away, or progressively decline
(cf. Article III, 1 and 6). In the same above-referenced 1969 CCM
opinion (under question 2), it is stated:
Christians as well as non-Christians expect differences of opinion
and judgment to arise when people walk together. The Synod has provided for forums in which such differences can be discussed and evaluated beyond the confines of the local congregation…When the majority
will has been determined, it must be respected. Otherwise life together
(synod) becomes all but impossible. Discussion may indeed continue;
but it needs to be carried on with full respect for the majority will and
within the forums established by the Synod for the preservation of the
synodical unity. If additional channels for discussion are needed, the

When disputes, disagreements, or offenses arise among members of
the body of Christ, it is a matter of grave concern for the whole church.
Conflicts that occur in the body should be resolved promptly (Matt.
5:23–24; Eph. 4:26–27). Parties are urged by the mercies of God to proceed with one another with “the same attitude that was in Christ Jesus”
(Phil. 2:5). In so doing, individuals, congregations, and various agencies
within the Synod are urged to reject a “win-lose” attitude that typifies
secular conflict. For the sake of the Gospel, the church should spare no
resource in providing assistance. (Bylaw 1.10.1)

Even the Synod’s “expulsion” provisions (Bylaws 2.14–2.17)
reflect its state of and desire for fellowship even though the Synod
may be required in a final step to “depart from” its “brethren,” “lest
we break the unity of the Synod”:
Termination of membership in the Synod is a serious matter involving both the doctrine and life of those to whom it has 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 (Bylaw
2.14.1) [emphasis added].

Regarding the provisions the Synod has made to provide avenues
essential to preserving the fellowship relationship of the Synod, a
November, 1973 CCM opinion urges, “We appeal once again to all
members of the Synod to use the channels which the Constitution,
Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod provide for resolving our differences…” A recent September 3–4, 2011 CCM opinion states: “For
any member or organization of members to advocate disagreement
with and unwillingness to use the Synod’s Bylaws without following
the approved dissent procedures or dispute resolution procedures invites the member’s/members’ ecclesiastical supervisor(s) to use those
2013 Convention Workbook