# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 4 5 2008_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

generally the case, is authorized to act in the name of ‘the church.’” (p. 25) This principle seems
relevant in view of the pastor’s claim that “Synod’s position under Article II states that…there
must be unanimity not only of the voters but there must be unanimity of the congregation.” In
other words, the position taken by the pastor (which he claims to be “the Synod’s position under
Article II”) would not give the congregation itself the power to delegate to others—even to the
voters’ assembly—the authority to carry out excommunication on its behalf.
The CTCR shares this input with the CCM in support of the view that one can affirm the doctrinal
position set forth by Walther in Thesis IX of Church and Ministry regarding congregational
consent in cases of excommunication without necessarily agreeing with the view that Matthew
18:15–18 implies or requires a “unanimous” decision on the part of the congregation.
___________
1

“Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our
Church,” reprinted in the Concordia Journal (July, 1989: 274-284).
2
Thesis IX “Concerning the Holy Ministry,” Church and Ministry, trans. J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1987): 303.
3
Church and Ministry, 322.
4
Pastoral Theology, ed. Norbert H. Mueller and George Kraus (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1990): 183.

(Adopted April 4-5, 2008)
31. Concordia, Ann Arbor Proposed Bylaws (07-2509)
After a thorough review of the Bylaws of Concordia University, Ann Arbor, the commission offers the
following suggestions and recommendations, holding in abeyance, however, its comments regarding the
issue of the removal of board members, this to allow time and opportunity for further research. The
Secretary of the Synod was asked to contact the Board of Directors and the Board for University
Education for additional input. The commission will get back to Concordia, Ann Arbor regarding this
subject at a later time.


Page 2, paragraph 4.02.2 (c): “legalist” would better read “legalistic.”



Page 2, paragraph 4.02.3: While it be beneficial for all members of the board to speak favorably
of decisions of the board after such decisions have been made, to consider all decisions “approved
by a unanimous vote” would be less true to fact and would also deprive the board of making
certain decisions “unanimous” when circumstances warrant such an action.



Page 4, paragraph 4.03.4 (j): While it is helpful for members of the board to speak as one
publicly, to deny opportunity for further debate or appeal for reversal short of routine periodic
review or a motion for consideration may stifle the ability of elected regents to carry out fiduciary
responsibilities.



Page 4, paragraph 4.05: Mention of the fact that the number of regents is subject to LCMS bylaw
is recommended.



Page 4, paragraph 4.08: See introductory paragraph above. Further investigation and study by the
commission will be required before a paragraph governing removal of regents can be approved.



Page 6, paragraph 5.02: Mention of the minutes of the meetings of the board should now reflect
the 2007 convention Res. 7-05B requirement that each board “develop policies and procedures
for making available official minutes.”



Page 6, paragraph 6.01: Bylaw reference 1.5.9 should now be Bylaw 1.5.3.1.

18