# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 21 2020_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

opinions in regard to congregational Constitutions and Bylaws when requested by congregations, the
District President, or the Board of Directors.” In its opinion the commission responded:
Bylaw 1.46 [e]: The committee does not have authority to render binding opinions as to the meaning
of congregational constitutions or bylaws, unless granted such by these congregational documents.
The congregation, not the district president or board of directors, would have the authority to
request more than an advisory interpretation of its documents.
In essence the commission indicated that unless, and only if, there were a specific statement to that effect
in the constitution or bylaws of the congregation, authorizing a request to be made of the district
Constitution Committee or some other outside source to give an interpretation of its constitution and bylaws
and agreeing to abide by said decision, the district Constitution Committee does not have the authority to
render a binding decision interpreting the constitution or bylaws of a congregation. In addition, the wording
of the congregation’s constitution and bylaws would have to specify who is authorized to request this
opinion on behalf of the congregation. Theoretically, with these provisions in place in its constitution and
bylaws, a congregation could bind itself to abide to the interpretation of the district Constitution Committee
or some other outside source. Yet, even in this case, the opinion rendered would be devoid of authority, as
far as Synod itself is concerned, as the rendering of such opinions is not a function assigned to the district
Constitution Committee.
The present wording of district Bylaw 1.45 (e) does not accurately reflect this opinion of the commission
and is not consistent with the language suggested to the district in the Synod Commission on Constitutional
Matters review of its bylaw in Op. 17-2862. It does not specify that this authority for the congregation to
request a binding opinion from the district Constitution Committee or other outside source must be
specifically included in the constitution and bylaws of the congregation itself. Regrettably, the commission
in Op. 17-2862A did not object to the language adopted by the district; that language today is found to have
been insufficient, and the approval granted in Op. 17-2862A is hereby overruled.
As district Bylaw 1.45 (e) currently stands, it is in violation of Const. Art. VII and Bylaws 2.2.1, 2.4.1, and
4.4.6, and cannot be used.
The commission now turns to the specific questions asked:
Question 1:

Considering the specific charge of a district Constitution Committee (Bylaw sections 2.2
and 2.4), and that the Bylaws provide otherwise for handling controversies within a
congregation through ecclesiastical supervision (Bylaw 4.4.6), and that Synod is purely
advisory to congregations in regard to matters of self-government (Const. Art. VII), is it
consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod for a district Constitution
Committee to be authorized to render opinions as indicated above?

Opinion:
No. A district constitution committee giving an opinion interpreting the constitution or
bylaws of a congregation is not so authorized by the Bylaws 2.2.1 and 2.4.1 of the Synod. Even if a
congregation were to have specifically included in its constitution or bylaws a provision for requesting such
an interpretation from the district Constitution Committee and had, as a congregation, requested such, any
opinion rendered would be without authority so far as the Synod or district are concerned. The congregation
requesting such an opinion, therefore, could not safely rely upon it, for example, in regard to ecclesiastical
supervision of the congregation by the district president or any dispute under Bylaw section 1.10.
Question 2:

Does it make a difference whether such interpretations are made at the request of a district
president, in the course of ecclesiastical supervision, or whether by the congregation itself,
or by the board of directors of the district?

Opinion: See preliminary comments. A request for insight regarding the meaning of a portion of the
constitution and bylaws of a congregation could theoretically be addressed to a district Constitution
Committee by either the congregation or the district president. However, any such response would be no

CCM Minutes – July 21, 2020 – Page 24