# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 30 31 2020_S9
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

62. Clarification of Op. 20-2939, District Constitution Committee Authority to Interpret (South
Wisconsin District Bylaw 1.45 e) (20-2939A)
By an e-mail of Sept. 16, a member of the South Wisconsin District requested clarification of the
commission’s Op. 20-2939 (July 21, 2021), to which request the commission now responds:
Question 1:

The commission in Op. 20-2939 has ruled that SWD Bylaw 1.45(e) is “in violation of
Const. Art. VII and Bylaws 2.2.1, 2.4.1, and 4.4.6, and cannot be used.” The rationale is
that Bylaw 1.45(e) “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.” In doing
so, the commission cites Op. 17-2862. However, Op. 20-2939 implies that a “binding
opinion” would never be possible because even a response to a “request for insight
regarding the meaning of the constitution and bylaws of a congregation” … “would be no
more than advice (and even so, not the advice of the district or by Synod) and could not be
regarded as an authoritative interpretation.” Op. 17-2862 and Op. 20-2939 thereby appear
to stand in contradiction to one another and do not provide clear guidance on how the South
Wisconsin District might revise Bylaw 1.45(e) in order to bring it into compliance with the
Synod’s governing documents.

Clarification: Opinion 20-2939 (minutes of July 21, 2020) states that 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 reason
it cannot stand is that Synod Bylaws 2.2.1 and 2.4.1 do not authorize a district commission or committee
on congregational constitutions to give binding opinions regarding the interpretation of the constitution or
bylaws of a congregation; for a district commission or committee on congregational constitutions to do so
it would be a violation of Constitution Article VII. However, since congregations are free to establish their
own self-government, Op. 20-2939 assumes that it is theoretically possible for a congregation to place a
provision in its constitution or bylaws that, in the case of an internal dispute, would authorize a request for
a binding outside opinion regarding the meaning of its constitution and bylaws, naming, for example, the
district commission or committee on constitutions, some other outside group, or even a particular group
established from within the congregation to give such a binding opinion.
Opinion 17-2862 (minutes of Nov. 10-11, 2017), which was a general review of the bylaws of the district,
stated regarding what was the wording at the time (then numbered 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.” Opinion 17-2862 thus acknowledged that such an option might be theoretically possible for a
congregation to insert in its governing documents, but Op. 17-2862 did not expand on what the implications
or ramifications might be.
In contrast, Op. 20-2039, in addition to indicating that such theoretical authority could only be established
in the governing documents of a congregation and not in those of a district, addresses specific issues
regarding what the implications and ramifications are, should a congregation have chosen to insert such
language into its governing documents. In such a case, where this language is present in congregational
governing documents to authorize an outside opinion, the effect would be that while the congregation would
be bound to this opinion, that opinion would have no authority in matters governed by the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod. This would be true even if the opinion was rendered by a district committee or
commission on congregational constitutions, because a district committee or commission on congregational
constitutions giving such an opinion would be operating outside of the authority given to it by the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. To give an example of what this means, if a congregation, acting
upon an opinion so received, removed a called ordained or commissioned minister from his or her position
in the congregation, and the matter was subsequently appealed via the Bylaw 1.10 process, the dispute

CCM Minutes – October 30–31, 2020 – Page 47