# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 21 22 2007_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

the State, God would maintain external order among men, "that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," 1 Tim. 2:2. It follows that the means which
the Church and State employ to gain their ends are entirely different. The Church may not
employ any other means than the preaching of the Word of God, John 18:11, 36; 2 Cor.
10:4. The State, on the other hand, makes laws bearing on civil matters and is empowered
to employ for their execution also the sword and other corporal punishments, Rom. 13:4.
Accordingly we condemn the policy of those who would have the power of the State
employed "in the interest of the Church" and who thus turn the Church into a secular
dominion; as also of those who, aiming to govern the State by the Word of God, seek to
turn the State into a Church.
In the abstract, it would be impossible for us to discuss or delineate all of the implications of this
section of the “Brief Statement.” Fundamentally, the Synod recognizes that the church is ordained
by God to save men, and the state is ordained by God to maintain civil order among men. The
questioned reference is to those who would have the state assume the responsibilities and
functions of the church, and attempt to make the functions of the church the functions of the state.
Question 5: After making further references to excerpts from the October 30, 2006 and November
15-17, 2006 minutes of the Board of Directors regarding motions made and not
adopted, the questioner raised issues regarding the potential applicability of the
earlier quoted section from the “Brief Statement” to the action proposed and
defeated.
Opinion: Because the motions from the minutes of the Board of Directors quoted by the
questioner were defeated and therefore never adopted by the board, the commission believes that
it would be unhelpful to the Synod to comment on such failed motions.
[Note: The questioner here quotes from Synod Constitution Art. XI, Section A, line 1: “Officers of the
Synod must assume only such rights as have been expressly conferred upon them by the Synod,” and from
the minutes of the October 30, 2006 and November 15-17, 2006 Board of Directors meetings: “This can be
accomplished by a declaration of the board explicitly stating that it will at all times and in all respects
follow Missouri Law and not allow the CCM to usurp the legal authority of the Board of Directors”
(sections 162 and 172 of the minutes). The questioner then adds that this specific request was made in the
minutes by a member of the Board of Directors seemingly to restructure the Synod and more specifically to
restructure the authority of the Commission on Constitutional Matters supposedly to comply with Missouri
non-profit law without convention approval.]

Question 6: (a) Since the Synod’s structure was established by the convention of the Synod, is
this particular request by a member of the Board of Directors to restructure the Synod
an exceeding of its authority and responsibility as granted to the board by the Synod?
(b) Does the Board of Directors of the Synod have constitutional authority as found
in the Synod’s organizational documents (Articles of Incorporation, Constitution, or
Bylaws) to even demand such a change in the Synod’s structure and disavow rulings
of the Commission on Constitutional Matters without Synod convention approval?
(c) Is this proposed request and/or motion of the Board of Directors also in direct
violation of Bylaw 3.3.5.5 (a) (2), and possibly 3.9.2.2 (b), and even more so Article
V of the Articles of Incorporation? And (d) Can the Synod’s Board of Directors
restructure the Synod’s governance without the approval of the Synod in convention?

128