# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 28 2004_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

b, cannot be read apart from Bylaw 3.103, c, which speaks to the issue of exercising executive
power for a purpose for which there is no specific directive. Prior to such exercise of power,
however, the President must consult with one of the four groups identified, namely, the
Praesidium, Board of Directors, Council of Presidents, or Council of Administrators, whichever
he judges to be most appropriate. As noted in the final sentence of 3.103, c, "Any member of
the Synod shall have the right to appeal to the convention of the Synod from his action."
Opinion Ag. 2073, issued in June, 1997, included the following comments:
The issue of presidential author ity in unforeseen circumstances is dealt with in Bylaw 3.103, c. “In
the event that the affairs of the Synod require the exercise of executive power for a purpose for
which there is no specific directive of the Synod, he shall be authorized to exercise such power after
consultation with the Vice-Presidents, the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod, the Council of Presidents, or the Council of Administrators, whichever in his judgment is
the most appropriate"….
The CCM agrees that the President must "assume only such rights as have been expressly conferred
... by the Synod" and "when he has been expressly invested with such power for a specific
purpose."
These provisions must not be read, however, in isolation from the remainder of the Constitution and
Bylaws. They must be considered in pari materia. Specific enabling language mandates
presidential authority in the areas of doctrine and practice. He has authority over administration of
the officers and employees of the Synod. He is expressly identified as the CEO of the Synod. The
President is mandated to be responsible to the Synod for the supervision of doctrine. While a
President is prohibited from exercising powers that have not been expressly conferred upon him, he
may exercise executive powers within framework provided by the Constitution and Bylaws. The
President may, for example, exercise broad power under the express language granting him
responsibility for doctrinal supervision. The Bylaws need not articulate every heresy or aberrant
doctrine that might trigger executive action. It is implicit in the express grant of authority in the
Constitution and Bylaws to supervise doctrine.
Despite this broad recognition of authority, the Commission’s opinion continued:
Having said this, the Commission is concerned that executive power not be exercised to the extent
that it deprives the members of the Synod of the benefit of receiving various points of views,
having access to general church news of interest to the Synod, or deprives an accused individual of
the right of defense. The history surrounding the founding of the Synod provides adequate evidence
for such concern. If it is believed by a member or members that this is occurring, the remedy is
identified above.
The better approach, an alternative to censorship, would be a discussion of the rationale for
including or not including certain letters to the editor on a given subject, publication of articles on
such subject, or that a notice be printed in a specific form. It is assumed that all parties involved are
concerned about the welfare of the Church and that in most, if not all, cases agreement can be
reached regarding the printing of certain materials.
In 1998, the Commission addressed the power of the President to respond to actions of a District that
were contrary to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. In Opinion 98-2122 (September 30, 1998)
the Commission referred specifically to the authority of the President under Bylaw 3.101 c 11:

170