# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 28 2004_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Constitution: “The officers of the Synod must assume only such rights as have been expressly conferred
upon them by the Synod, and in everything pertaining to their rights and the performance of their duties
they are responsible to the Synod.” As prior opinions of the Commission have recognized, because of the
broad grant of authority to the President, it is often difficult to define with particularity and in advance the
precise boundaries of the President’s duties and powers. In a September, 1972 “Opinion on Presidential
Authority,” (cf. Ag. 330, 340, etc.) the Commission noted:
1. That it is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the Constitution and the
Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod give to the President of the Synod
exceptionally broad responsibilities and correspondingly broad authority.
2.

That while the ordinary day to day responsibility not only for administration but also for
doctrine rests also with other officials, boards, and commissions created in the course of time
by the Synod, the Synod has never repealed the broad responsibility and authority vested in the
presidential office, but instead the Synod appears to have increased those powers from time to
time. It is therefore conceivable that the President, acting in accordance with the appropriate
Articles of the Constitution and By-Laws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, may
exercise his pastoral judgment to intervene in situations which, in his estimation, are so
important that the exercise of his ultimate constitutional responsibility is required.

3. That when a synodical President feels impelled to exercise that responsib ility it is clearly
understood that his action is always subject not only to the regular appeals procedures involving
the commissions of adjudication and the Board of Appeals, but also to approval or disapproval,
to ratification or recission, by the convention of the Synod.
4.

That if the Synod does not wish to have such authority reside in its President, then it is the
opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the Constitution will need to be
amended to limit the authority of the President. Procedures for amending the Constitution are
detailed in Article XIV.

Later, in 1979, while reviewing proposed Task Force proposals to amend the Constitution and/or Bylaws,
the Commission noted (Ag. 1266A):
6. The oft repeated statement that, "No one has any authority between conventions to make
decisions" is held by the CCM to be completely groundless. The boards and commissions of the
Synod are empowered to make decisions. Furthermore, if there is lack of clarity the CCM can
always be asked for an interpretation. In addition, Bylaw 2.89 c specifically states that if there
is a conflict between two boards or commissions of the Synod, the Board of Directors is
empowered to make a final determination. Finally, if there is no other recourse, the Bylaws
(2.29 c) bestow upon the President of the Synod executive powers that he can exercise in
consultation with a proper, related group, with the provision (a good one) that his decision is
always appealable to the next convention. Somehow this myth of "no possibility of decisions
between conventions" needs to be laid to rest. Furthermore, if the assembly is designed to take
care of this alleged problem, the question arises, "Who makes decisions between the
semi-annual meetings of the assembly?" (A box within a box within a box, etc.). .
In April, 1997, while addressing a concern between the President and the Board for Communication
Services, the Secretary of the Synod had noted:
1) The Bylaws do allow for the exercise of executive powers by the President of the Synod even
when he has not been expressly invested with such power for a specific purpose. Bylaw 3.103,

169