# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 3 4 2011_S22
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

60. Future Meetings
The commission discussed future meeting dates in addition to its November 11–13, 2011 meeting:
•
•

February 10 – 12, 2012
May 11 – 13, 20112 (tentative)

61. Adjournment
The meeting was closed with words of benediction by the commission’s secretary.

Raymond L. Hartwig, Secretary
i

8. The Synod’s established procedures for registering dissent with its doctrinal statements include the following:
a. “That we call upon those who teach publicly in the church (pastors, teachers, and professors) to test their findings and
opinions with their peer groups before presenting them to the church at large and to refrain in brotherly love from
disseminating doctrinal opinions in such manner and in such situations as will cause confusion and offense in the church”
(1965 Resolution 2-08, Proceedings, p. 96).
It is expected that pastors and teachers will discuss their objections and concerns with their conferences, that professors
will discuss such matters with their teaching and administrative colleagues, and that staff members will discuss their
objections with their boards and other staff persons.
b. With reference to statements of belief, the Synod has requested “that those who disagree with these formulations in part or
in whole be held to present their objections to them formally to those officials whom the Synod has given the immediate
supervision of their doctrine (1971 Resolution 5-24, Proceedings, p. 165). This means that pastors and teachers are to
present their objections to their District president; professors at synodical institutions, to the president and board of
control of their institution, as well as to the District president of the geographical District in which the institution is
located (cf. Bylaw 1.09 d, adopted in 1973 Resolution 3-02, Proceedings, p. 128); and staff members to their boards or
commissions and any appropriate supervisory staff members.
c. The Synod has further provided that dissent is to be brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (cf. Bylaw 1.09 e; 1962 Resolution 3-17, Proceedings, p. 106; 1965 Resolution 2-08, Proceedings, p. 96;
Council of Presidents Statement incorporated in 1971 Resolution 2-21, Proceedings, p. 119). The Commission on
Theology and Church Relations should make every effort to express its opinion on the matter in question in ample time to
permit further appeal on the part of the dissenter.
The commission’s biennial report to the Synod should also indicate the opinions it has rendered on all such expressions
of dissent, and should include any recommendation deemed advisable to clarify or correct possible inadequacies in the
document under question.
d. Members of the Synod may submit overtures to the synodical convention in an effort to have the Synod change its
position or recognized the viability of the dissenting opinion. Bylaw 1.09 e asks that dissent “be expressed first within the
fellowship of peers, then brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding
expression as an overture to the convention calling for revision or recision” (adopted in 1973 Resolution 3-02,
Proceedings, p. 128).
9. From the fact that the Synod has established the aforementioned procedures for expressing and dealing with dissent, it is
clear that the Synod does not intend to impede the fraternal discussion of doctrinal issues, and that the Synod recognizes that
such discussion may even lead to the revision or correction of its official doctrinal statements. But it is equally clear that the
Synod, in the interest of doing things decently and in order, has established the aforementioned procedures for expressing
and dealing with dissent so that the church is not disturbed by its members engaging in loveless public criticism or
disparagement of its official position.
10. In evaluating and dealing with dissent or disagreement which has been expressed in accordance with the aforementioned
procedures, all supervisory officials and boards, as well as the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and any peer
groups that may be involved, should always endeavor to distinguish carefully between formal and substantive dissent, and to
deal with the latter in terms of the Synod’s confessional base, namely Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions (cf.
Constitution, Article II)….
12. It must be recognized that the process of expressing and dealing with dissent may reveal that the dissenter actually disagrees
with the confessional position of the Synod, and not merely with a formation in a synodical statement of belief. It is

185