# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 9 2001_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The 1992 opinion discusses provisions of the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaw 4.73, but does not mention
Bylaw 2.41 d.
The Commission observes that the 1992 opinion is primarily based on the Synod’s Constitution, whereas
the 1998 opinion is based on the Bylaws, without reference to the Constitution. A general rule of
construction holds that where a constitution and its related bylaws conflict, the provisions of the
constitution will control.
The Commission further observes that Bylaw 3.915 d (1989 Bylaw 3.533 d) provides that “[a]n opinion
rendered by the Commission shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a
synodical convention.” The 1992 opinion was issued prior to the 1992 synodical convention. There have
been four synodical conventions since that opinion was issued, and no action has been taken to overrule
it. The 1998 opinion was issued after the 1998 convention, and thus there has only been one synodical
convention at which it might have been overruled, but no action was taken to do so at the 2001
convention of the Synod.
Bylaw 2.41 d has changed slightly since 1992. Where the bylaw in the 1989 Handbook reads, “An
individual member of the Synod who is serving an entity other than a congregation or District…shall be
subject to the ecclesiastical supervision of the President of the geographical District in which the entity is
located” (emphasis added), the version of that same bylaw in the 1998 Handbook reads, “An individual
member of the Synod who is serving an agency other than a congregation or District…shall be subject to
the ecclesiastical supervision of the President of the geographical District in which the agency is located”
(emphasis added). Furthermore, 1998 Handbook Bylaw 3.51 a defines an “Agency of the Synod” as “[a]n
instrumentality other than a congregation, whether or not separately incorporated, which the Synod in
convention or its Board of Directors has caused or authorized to be formed to further the Synod’s
objectives.” Subsection l of that same bylaw separately defines “Synod” as “the association of selfgoverning Lutheran congregations initially incorporated on July 3, 1894, and presently named The
Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, and all agencies of the Synod as defined in Bylaw 3.51 a.” Clearly,
the Synod is not an agency of itself, but includes its agencies under its larger umbrella. This change is
significant. It could be argued that this Commission’s 1992 opinion was weakened by its failure to
consider Bylaw 2.41 d, based on the rationale that the synodical President was serving an entity other than
a congregation or a District and thus should be under the ecclesiastical supervision of the President of the
geographical District in which the International Center is located (i.e., Missouri). It would seem that the
change in the bylaw has eliminated this argument, since the synodical President is not serving an agency
of the Synod as that term is used in the present Bylaw 2.41 d, but rather is serving the Synod itself, an
entity that is separately defined in Bylaw 3.51 l.
After due consideration of both its prior opinions and of the past and present wording of the Synod’s
Constitution and Bylaws, this Commission is of the opinion that its 1992 ruling is the correct one. First,
that ruling is grounded primarily in the Constitution, rather than the Bylaws. Second, one bylaw that
might have been seen to undermine that opinion has been changed and would no longer have that effect.
Third, the 1992 opinion has stood the test of time in that four synodical conventions have been held since
it was issued, and it has not been overruled. Fourth, this interpretation resolves the conundrum created by
the 1998 opinion where the District President would exercise ecclesiastical supervision over the synodical
President, who would in turn exercise ecclesiastical supervision over that same District President.
This interpretation also answers the concern expressed in the Commission’s 1998 opinion that the
synodical President might be harassed and hampered in carrying out his duties by constant scrutiny of his
actions through complaints made to the Missouri District President. This interpretation does not make the
synodical President a law unto himself, exempt from accountability for his actions. According to the

157