# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 30 2005_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Synod regarding congregational constitutions? If not, does this provide sufficient basis for
the board of directors to decline approval of the proposed revision?
Opinion: In an April 29, 1983 response to questions from a district constitution committee regarding a
“debatable constitution” before the committee, the Commission on Constitutional Matters offered the
following opinion regarding an article in that congregation’s constitution that was very similar to the
bylaw statement currently in question:
If this article implies that women can teach only women and children, it is not acceptable.
The Commission can find no evidence that the Synod takes such a restrictive position
toward the role of women in the church. Therefore, the Commission on Constitutional
Matters concludes that the position taken in the constitution under consideration does not
agree with the practice of the Synod and goes beyond its present confessional stance, and
is therefore unacceptable (Ag. 1625C).
The Commission reaffirms this opinion and suggests that if any party believes that there has been a
change in the teaching or practice of the Synod relevant to this question since it was provided, such
theological questions should be addressed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
Question 2:

In a matter related to the first question, the above-mentioned phrase is modeled on bylaws
of another congregation in the district that were approved at least 80 years ago. This
congregation has also submitted a revision of its constitution and bylaws. In the case of
proposed changes to a constitution and/or bylaws, do the entire constitution and bylaws
come under review again, or only those portions that include changes from the previous
edition?

Opinion: It is reasonable and in keeping with earlier opinions of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters to request and review entire documents, constitutions and bylaws, when changes are submitted to
district constitution committees. A May 17, 2001 opinion (01-2222) stated, “It is the primary interest of
the committee, therefore, to take care that nothing in the documents they are examining is contrary to
[Holy Scripture, the Confessions, and the teachings and practices of the Synod].” Again (according to
June 10, 1995 Opinion Ag. 2008), “if the constitution and bylaws of a congregation included something
which was not in keeping with the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions of the Synod, even though that
constitution and bylaws had been previously approved by a district constitution committee, if something
was now identified which was contrary to the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod, the
congregation could be required to make necessary changes to brings its documents into conformity with
those synodical documents and positions.” In its January 9-10, 1987 Opinion Ag. 1796A, the Commission
also stated, “when error is discovered, it is contrary to all logic and Christian expectation to suggest that it
not be corrected.”
Given these prior statements of the Commission, not only should the complete documents of a
congregation come under review when amendments are made, but any provision previously approved that
is not in agreement with the doctrine and practice of the Synod today should be given attention by a
constitution committee.
64. Authority of District Board of Directors to Instruct District Nominations Process (05-2425)
In a letter dated May 17, 2005, a pastor of the Synod included a copy of a document adopted by his
district’s board of directors pertaining to the district’s nominations and elections process. He questioned
the right of the board to request specific information from nominees and to instruct the nominations and
elections process to act on the basis of the receipt of that information. The mailing of the board of
28