# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 26 28 2010_S10
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Synod has long held that doctrine is determined by and drawn only from God’s Word, and that it is
not established either by a decree or by a majority vote of the self-governing congregation or an
association of such congregations. Article VIII of the Synod’s Constitution makes this very clear when it
states: “All matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided only by the Word of God.” It is also the
Synod’s conviction that “doctrine may not be accepted or rejected upon the basis of considerations of
expediency” (1971 Res. 2-21). 4 The current CCM recognizes that the phrase in question in Opinion 992157 seeks to express this understanding.
The terms “doctrinal” and “non-doctrinal” have caused uncertainty or confusion in certain contexts,
including their use to identify certain resolutions. Conventions have struggled to find a consensus
definition of what is a doctrine (cf. 1964 CTCR report, What Is a Doctrine? with its reference to 1944,
1953, and 1962 convention resolutions; also the May 2004 study document, “CONGREGATIONS AND
SYNOD—Background Materials on the Advisory Nature of the LCMS”). For example, some resolutions
simply restate biblical and confessional teaching, while others apply that teaching to certain
circumstances or situations. Are both types “doctrinal,” or is the latter “non-doctrinal”? Is a resolution on
practical or programmatic matters that simply cites one or more Bible passages in the “whereas”
paragraphs to be considered a “doctrinal” resolution on that account, or is it “non-doctrinal,” or is it both?
Are resolutions dealing with social or ethical issues or expressing moral judgments to be considered
“doctrinal” on that account, even if they contain no biblical or confessional references? Such questions
and many others like them can easily lead to disagreement and even discord within the Synod. Therefore,
because of terminological ambiguities, because Article II simply says “no resolution of the Synod,” and
because Bylaw 1.7.2 simply says “its resolutions” and “the resolution,” the commission withdraws this
formulation (non-doctrinal) and replaces it with the language found in this revised opinion.
Conclusion
In response to the question under consideration, the commission also states that the Article VII phrase
“inexpedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned”—

4

The quote from 1971 Res. 2-21 in its immediate context:
The Synod, in stating the circumstances under which a member is not obligated to adhere to the general
rule that "the Synod expects every member congregation to respect its resolutions and to consider them of
binding force" (Bylaw 1.09 b [2007 Bylaw 1.7.2]), grants exceptions only with respect to such resolutions
as may be accepted or rejected as a matter of expediency depending upon a congregation's condition and
locality, as well as such resolutions that affect a congregation in the area of self-government (Constitution,
Article VII). That the Synod does not intend the exceptions to apply to doctrinal resolutions is evident from
the fact that doctrine does not properly belong to the area of self-government, and from the fact that
doctrine may not be accepted or rejected upon the basis of considerations of expediency.
The provision that allows a member to reject a doctrinal resolution of the Synod is that such a resolution is
"not in accordance with the Word of God" (Article VII of the Constitution). The Synod, therefore, holds
that every member, by virtue of his agreement when he voluntarily joined the Synod and freely placed
himself under the provisions of the Synod's Constitution and Bylaws, is bound by the Word of God
expressed in the Synod's resolutions until it can be demonstrated that a resolution is in fact "not in
accordance with the Word of God." Otherwise the Synod holds that its resolutions are to be considered "of
binding force if they are in accordance with the Word of God" (Bylaw 1.09 b [2007 Bylaw 1.7.2]), and the
Synod permits no member to teach or practice in violation of a resolution simply on the grounds that he
does not agree with it or that it is in conflict with his private persuasion.