# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 9 11 2013_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Nothing in the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod has changed the Synod’s understanding
of “fellowship of peers” because of the advanced education of either clergy or laity. As pointed out in the
answer to Question 1 above, fellowship of peers in the context of the dissent procedures of the Synod
consists of those with adequate understanding and competency to evaluate and critique a position being
advocated by the one expressing dissent. Congregations of the Synod and individual lay members of
congregations have always been encouraged to study theological issues, and where appropriate, with
sufficient understanding of the theological issues, have always been able to participate in discussions
among fellowships of peers. Advanced education does not lessen (or heighten) the responsibility of
members of the Synod to honor and uphold the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. As in
the answer to Question 1, how members discuss such matters and for what purpose indicate much about
whether the members are indeed honoring and uphold the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod or if they are indeed teaching or advocating a doctrinal position different than that of the Synod,
which could cause them to be subject to a charge of false doctrine and the discipline of their ecclesiastical
supervisor(s).
231. Minnesota South District Revised Policy Manual (13-2673)
With a May 8, 2013 email, a member of the staff of the Minnesota South District submitted his district’s
revised policy manual for review by the commission. Upon review, the commission offered the following
recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•

Under 1.01, paragraph c (and also in Policy 3.41.08), mention should be made of the required
review by the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters.
Under 1.07, the Synod bylaw reference provided should be 1.5.2.
Policy 2.01.01 needs to reflect that a district president is not responsible to the district board of
directors for his ecclesiastical supervisory responsibilities.
Under 2.02 (and elsewhere), it will be helpful if mention is consistently made to whether a bylaw
reference is to a Synod or a district bylaw.
Policy 3.01.05 (and elsewhere) refers to the district constitution committee with terminology
(“Committee on Constitutions and Membership”) different from that in the Synod’s Bylaws
(“Constitution Committee”). Use of terminology consistent with that of the Synod would better
serve to make the connection between district policy and Synod bylaw.

The commission thanks the district for its cooperation in offering its documents for review and giving
attention to the recommendations provided.
232. Status of Church and Ministry (13-2677)
In a letter dated June 13, 2013, the president of one of the Synod’s seminaries submitted a question
regarding the status of C.F.W. Walther’s Church and Ministry.
Question:

“What is the official status of Dr. Walther’s ‘Church and Ministry’ in The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod? We regard it highly and rightly so, but is it an official doctrinal statement of
our church? As [this] Seminary serves the church through the formation of pastors and
deaconesses, it is important that we give “Church and Ministry” the deference it properly
deserves.”

Opinion: At the inception of the Synod, all official business of the Synod was conducted in the German
language. Following the inception of the Synod in 1847, Dr. C.F.W. Walther attempted to clear up
CCM Minutes – August 9-11, 2013 – Page 384