# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 20 2012_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

draft an opinion which was published as a supplement to the CCM’s report to the convention. That
opinion directly addressed and answered this question:
Supplement to Report of Committee on Constitutional Matters (re Resolution 9) 1962
CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS, p. 187
1. The most controversial resolution presented to and adopted by the San Francisco convention in 1959
was, without doubt, Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 (Proceedings, 1959, pp. 191, 192). This was
evident while the convention was in session. It became obvious also in several ways after the convention
had adjourned; for example, for the first time, if memory serves well, the Committee on Constitutional
Matters was asked by a district (English District) to rule on the constitutionality of an adopted resolution.
2. The request of the English District seemed to us to be based, at least in part, on the fact that Resolution 9
of Floor Committee 3 had not been given to the congregations for general study prior to the convention. On
this basis, our committee formulated an opinion which stated that it could not declare this resolution
unconstitutional on this technical ground, because Resolution 9 had been formulated by a floor committee
of the convention in answer to several overtures and it was therefore impossible to present it to the
congregations prior to the convention. Our committee admittedly did not pass on the question of the
constitutionality of Resolution 9 because there seemed to be no compelling reason to do so at that time. For
one thing, the President and vice-presidents of the Synod had promised an amplification and clarification of
the resolution, and protocol indicated that this clarification should be published before any opinion would
be expressed on the constitutionality of Resolution 9; again, it was obvious that the Cleveland convention
would be asked for a ruling on the constitutionality of Resolution 9, either by a vote to rescind or to
reaffirm this resolution.
3. However, it is now common knowledge that a continuing and ever-increasing concern over this issue has
been expressed by many members of the Synod. As a result a request has again been addressed to our
committee to render an opinion on the real issue without further delay. It seems to us as of now, that the
doctrinal issues confronting the church will be discussed much more dispassionately if the uncertainty of
the status of Resolution 9 could be removed. This consideration prompts us to submit the following
supplemental opinion to the section of our report captioned “Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3” (p. 227,
Reports and Memorials).
A. The right of the Synod to add to Article II of our Constitution (“Confession”) by following the
prescribed method of amending the Constitution (Article XIV) must be recognized and accepted.
B. The Brief Statement, which has become the focal point of attention in this present controversy, is
not under attack as such; it has been praised highly by many who wish Resolution 9 rescinded and also
by those who agree with Resolution 9. In expressing an opinion as to the constitutionality of
Resolution 9, we are in no way underestimating or minimizing the value of the Brief Statement or of
any other doctrinal statement accepted by the Synod, nor are we questioning their Scriptural
correctness. This is not the province of the Committee on Constitutional Matters.
C. By including paragraph “B” of Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 (“That Synod’s pastors, teachers,
and professors are held to teach and act in harmony with such statements”) in the resolution, the
resolution, in our opinion, was given the effect of amending Article II of our Constitution.
Furthermore, paragraph “B” limits the binding force of doctrinal statements to pastors, teachers, and
professors and says nothing about its binding force on member congregations of the Synod.
D. We call particular attention to the fact that the Synod and every member of the Synod accepts
without reservation the confessional standard as set forth in Article II of the Synod’s Constitution;
these are the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod (Article VI). Furthermore,
members who act contrary to these Confessions may be expelled from the Synod (Article XIII). The
Confessions mentioned in Article II are the only confessions to which pastors and teachers bind
themselves in taking their ordination and installation vows or to which a congregation binds itself
when it becomes a member of the Synod. It necessarily follows that in order to make any other
confessional or doctrinal statement binding upon the members of the Synod, the statement must be
made a part of the Constitution. Accordingly, Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 of the San Francisco
convention, in our opinion, should have been treated as an amendment to the Constitution rather than
as a measure that could be adopted by a simple majority vote.

256