# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 9 2001_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

1992 opinion, there is a mechanism for the Synod in convention to exercise authority over the synodical
President.
There are other bylaws that are implicated by the question of ecclesiastical authority, including the
dispute resolution provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws. That chapter is clearly intended to apply to
all members of the Synod. The provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws interpreted in this opinion are
far from clear and definitive on the issue presented. This commission respectfully recommends that the
Synod’s Commission on Structure give consideration to this issue to attempt to bring greater clarity to the
intention of the Constitution and Bylaws.
226. The Binding Nature of CCM Opinions (01-2241)
In a memorandum dated December 6, 2001, the President of the Synod indicated that he is aware that the
Commission has been “asked to render an opinion regarding the question of the accountability of the
President of the Synod and whether or not he is under the ecclesiastical supervision of the President of the
Missouri District, specifically in light of the apparent conflict on this matter between two previous CCM
opinions, that of 1992 and that of 1998.” In connection with this matter, he asked a series of related
questions.
QUESTION 1: Bylaw 3.905 d states, in part: “An opinion rendered by the commission shall be
binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by synodical
convention.” Has the 1992 opinion of the CCM been in fact overruled by a
synodical convention? If so, at which convention and in which resolution did this
occur? If not, then on what constitutional basis would the 1998 opinion of the
CCM become more authoritative than the 1992 opinion, which preceded the 1998
opinion and is, therefore, still “binding on the question decided”?
Opinion: As noted in the Commission’s preceding opinion 01-2240, 1992 opinion Ag. 1915 was not
overruled by any of the conventions that followed. The Commission also recognized that the 1992
opinion and a portion of 1998 opinion 98-2122 are in conflict. It concluded that the 1992 opinion “is the
correct one” for reasons given and, therefore, to be regarded as authoritative.
CCM records indicate numerous cases in which the Commission has agreed to reconsider its opinions. On
rare occasion it has also withdrawn or changed an opinion on the basis of further study and consideration
of the question presented.
QUESTION 2: If the CCM renders an opinion that, in fact, the 1992 opinion of the CCM is still
“binding on the questions decided,” what then happens to a synodical member’s
official charges under Bylaw 2.27 that have been filed against the synodical
President with the Missouri District President?
Opinion: The Commission has rendered the opinion (01-2240) that the 1992 opinion of the CCM “is the
correct one” and, therefore, binding on the questions decided. According to the 1992 opinion, “[i]t would
seem that the only recourse [for a synodical member’s charges] is an appeal to the convention of the
Synod ‘when personal admonition fails to have the President of the Synod carry out the responsibilities of
his office as defined by the Handbook’” (Ag. 1915).
QUESTION 3: Since both the Constitution and the Bylaws clearly state that the President of the
Synod has supervision of all District Presidents and of all officers of the Synod,
including the Vice-Presidents, under what constitutional authority would either a
District President or the synodical Vice-Presidents be charged with the

158