# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 21 22 2002_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

3.101 B 5 to “call up for review any action by an individual officer” in order to call into
question the ruling made by the member of the Praesidium who was given power to
investigate and rule on the case?
Opinion: While a synodical president may be disqualified from participation in Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter
VIII of the Bylaws for reasons given in Bylaw 2.27 a 1, he may, due to his constitutional responsibilities
and powers provided under Article XI and in light of this Commission’s opinion 02-2282, call up for
review a decision made by the next qualified officer who is carrying out the responsibilities of Bylaw 2.27
and Chapter VIII. The Commission has responded in further detail to this question in its opinion 02-2297.
76. Former Opinion re Lutheran Book of Worship (02-2286)
An emeritus member of the Synod in a June 30, 2002 letter requested that the Commission update its
1983 ruling regarding the Lutheran Book of Worship in light of related convention actions. After citing
several references from convention actions, he explained: “This evidence is supplied to the CCM to help
them find the official decision on the part of the convention of the Synod that the Lutheran Book of
Worship is doctrinally impure.”
Opinion: In its April 29, 1983 opinion Ag. 1645-1640, the Commission stated:
If in fact the Lutheran Book of Worship is not “doctrinally pure,” then under Article VI of
our Synod’s Constitution it should not be used by our congregations. However, we can find
no evidence of an official decision on the part of the convention of the Synod itself that the
Lutheran Book of Worship is doctrinally impure.
Bylaw 3.905 d states that an opinion rendered by the Commission on Constitutional Matters shall be
binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical convention. The material
furnished to the Commission to support the present request was available to the Commission when it
rendered its 1983 opinion. Since many synodical conventions have been held since 1983 and none of
these have overruled the 1983 opinion, the Commission declines to revisit the question.
77. Questions re Legitimacy of Board of Regents Election (02-2287)
Two members of the Board of Regents of a synodical school, in a July 18, 2002 follow-up letter to the
Commission’s June 10-11 opinion 02-2268, supplied additional policy information regarding the question
at hand, specifically, the legitimacy of the process used by the Board of Regents in a recent election.
Question:

Insofar as Bylaw 3.69 b is very specific when it states that boards must conduct business in
accordance with accepted parliamentary procedures, is an election legitimate that has not
followed such accepted parliamentary procedure as evidenced in the attached documents?

Opinion: This matter was previously considered by the Commission and thereafter it issued opinion 022268. The Commission concluded its opinion by stating:
The Commission does not have copies of the Bylaws, rules of order, standing rules, or other
organizational documents of the Board of Regents in question, and its authority is also
limited under Bylaw 3.905. The Commission is unable to answer further the question posed.
Upon review of that opinion, the Commission realizes it may have misled the member who asked the
question in that the opinion inferred that the Commission had the authority in rendering an opinion to
review the rules of order, standing rules, or policy manual of a board of regents. It does not. The
56