# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 10 2017_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

2.5.4.) The preface of that resolution, while it deals with initial certification for ministry and not with
ongoing ecclesiastical supervision, relates obviously to the matter of Const. Art. XIII 3, to the implications
of the expulsion of a pastor from membership in the Synod:
One of the very purposes of a synodical fellowship is to provide guidance and help in the exercise
of a congregation’s right to call a pastor, and one of the very reasons why a synod exists is to set
standards for the parish pastorate so that the individual congregation may be assured that the man
whom it calls is qualified to serve as its parish pastor (Charter, Art. II b; Constitution, Article III
3). To this end The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod establishes procedures for determining
whether men meet the standards. One of the advantages which a congregation receives when it
joins the Synod is the protection against pastors who do not meet such standards. (1969 Res. 523, Proceedings, pp. 119–20)
Const. Art. VII provides: “In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government
exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s right of selfgovernment it is but an advisory body.” Were the Synod an ecclesiastical government (Kirchenobrigkeit)
with legislative or coercive powers, when it determined that a pastor should not be pastor, it could itself
remove him from office, or command with force of law that such be done. Synod is not an ecclesiastical
government, but advises (albeit in the strongest possible terms) a congregation whose pastor has been
removed from membership in the Synod that such a man is no longer suitable to be pastor—that the only
appropriate course of action, now, is to “depose him from office and to deal with him in accordance with
the Word of God.” Such advice is inherent in the “evangelical supervision, counsel and care” and
“protection” (Const. Art. III 8, 9) that are fundamental objectives of the Synod. When Synod gives such
advice it is doing what the congregations, including the one in question, have formed it to do, and the
provision of such advice, however forceful, cannot be called an exercise of “legislative or coercive powers.”
It is an aspect of the ecclesiastical supervision Synod exists to provide. It is an advisory Synod giving
critically important advice.
The congregation may decide to depose or not to depose. However, the congregations of the Synod have
explicitly declared in the Constitution establishing their synodical union (Const. Art. XIII 3) that the
congregation that ignores Synod’s advice in such a matter—continuing to be served by a pastor who has
been (for cause and by due process—see Const. Art. XIII 1–2, VI, II) expelled from the Synod, and refusing
to “deal with him according to the Word of God”—in so doing, forfeits its membership in the Synod.
It is self-evident that Const. Art. XIII 3 presumes a situation in which the congregation finds removing its
pastor to be “inexpedient,” in the sense that it will not be persuaded to do so—as in such a case “all
negotiations and admonitions have failed of their purpose.” If Const. Art. VII 1 were intended to excuse
such a congregation from removal from the Synod, Const. Art. XIII 3 would be rendered meaningless. As
we have seen above, however, Const. Art. VII 1’s “right of expediency” does not apply to the Constitution
of the Synod. Manifestly Synod has the right, on behalf of all its congregations, to remove a member,
including a congregation, that fails to meet the constitutional standards of membership (Const. Art. II, VI,
XIII). When Synod, by its constitutional and bylaw mechanisms, removes such a wayward member
congregation, it is not “imposing something on the congregation” or exercising “legislative or coercive
powers” relative to a congregation’s “right of self-government.” It is simply acknowledging that this
congregation no longer walks with Synod, but goes its own way.
There is thus no question, as it was put to the commission, “whose will has greater authority,” but a
distinction must be drawn: The congregation may, in the end, ignore Synod’s advice and do as it wishes—
the congregation’s individual will may there prevail (but let God’s will be done among us on earth). Selfevidently, however, such a stance is incompatible with continued membership in the Synod—and on that
point Synod’s collective will prevails. Nothing in Const. Art. VII 1 allows the will of the individual
congregation to trump the collective will of all the congregations of the Synod, as expressed in Const. Art.
XIII, including Const. Art. XIII 3, regarding standards for membership in the Synod and the expulsion of

CCM Minutes – July 10, 2017 – Page 57