# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 21 2020_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

more than advice (and, even so, not the advice of the district or the Synod) and could not be regarded as an
authoritative interpretation. Since a district board of directors is not involved in ecclesiastical supervision,
it would have no official role in resolving a dispute within a congregation of the district.
Question 3:

If such opinions are legitimate when requested by congregations, considering that
membership in the Synod is held by the congregation and not by its members (other than
rostered church workers thereof) would such an opinion, if allowable, need to be requested
by the congregation as such, as an official act, or could it be requested by an officer of the
congregation, such as its chairman or president?

Opinion:
See preliminary comments. Any such opinion, regardless of how it may come to be
requested, possesses no authority under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
Question 4:

Were the interpretation offered to relate to the divine call of a member of the Synod by a
congregation of the Synod, a circumstance in which a dispute resolution panel might
ultimately be called upon to determine a dispute, would such an “advisory” or “more than
advisory” opinion, supported by the bylaws of a district, necessarily be regarded as
authoritatively rendered?

Opinion:
See preliminary comments. Even in the event that a congregation had the necessary
provisions in its constitution or bylaws authorizing the district Constitution Committee or some other source
to give an “authoritative” (from the congregation’s perspective) interpretation of its constitution and bylaws
in the case of a dispute within the congregation, the congregation, as a member of the Synod, is bound to
the ecclesiastical supervision of the district president and to the Bylaw section 1.10 process, and any such
outside opinion would possess no authority under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod and have no
bearing on the role of the district president or of the Bylaw section 1.10 process of the Synod.
Question 5:

South Wisconsin District Bylaw 1.45 (c) states as another function of the committee: “c.
Interpret, within the limitations of synod bylaw, the bylaws unique to our district and
resolutions of the district in cases of controversy. Its opinion shall be binding unless
overruled by the district[.]” Could determinations under 1.45 (e) be overruled by the
district?

Opinion:
Any opinion issued under District Bylaw 1.45 (e) possesses no authority under the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Neither has the district (or a district board of directors) the authority
to interpret the constitution and bylaws of a congregation, except to satisfy itself that they contain nothing
contrary to the Scriptures or the Confessions; therefore, the overruling of a moot opinion would itself be
moot.
Question 6:

Again, in regard to South Wisconsin District Bylaw 1.45 (c), “Its opinion shall be binding
unless overruled by the district,” would the “district” be limited to the district convention,
or could an opinion be overruled by, for example, the district board of directors?

Opinion:

See above answer to Question 5.

38. Adjournment and Upcoming Meetings
The commission set its next meeting for August 10, 6–8:30 p.m., and will continue to arrange a greater
number of relatively brief internet conference meetings to deal with business as it arises. Chairman Gude
and Secretary Sias will review the business before the commission and plan a work schedule. With its
agenda for the present meeting concluded, the commission adjourned.
John W. Sias, Secretary

CCM Minutes – July 21, 2020 – Page 25