# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 23 2020_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Opinion:
It is the opinion of the commission that the question whether to delay the upcoming
convention of the Synod by a year is self-evidently a “matter of such a nature that the action cannot be
delayed until the next convention” and therefore falls within the standard set by Const. Art. XI B 8. Such a
question may, consistent with the requirements of Const. Art. XI B 8, be put to the congregations for their
vote. The congregations in response have the right to approve or reject any proposal made by the President,
a determination that involves not only the substance of the question put to them but also their assessment
of whether the facts and circumstances necessitate action without delay.
Question 2:

Is it consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod for the congregations,
through such a vote as described in Question 1, and under circumstances as described, to
extend the length of a triennium?

Opinion:
An action of the member congregations under Const. Art. XI B 8 must be otherwise
constitutional. Const. Art. VIII A 1 specifies a three-year duration to the triennium. The purpose of this
provision is to preserve the right of the member congregations to govern the Synod and its agencies with
the desired regularity and periodicity.
Circumstances could conceivably and ultimately, as a matter of probabilities the commission is neither
equipped nor empowered to assess, subject to futility the member congregations’ meeting in regular
convention either as a Synod within the triennial schedule or as their respective districts within the allotted
calendar year of that triennium. Looking back from such an outcome, mechanical submission of the
congregations to the triennial meeting provision might be found to have more significantly impaired their
right to govern their Synod and their districts than it would have to have offer them the ability, by the
proposed vote, to manage the risk that they would be unable to meet on schedule by expanding the
triennium. While it is possible, on the other hand, that expanding the triennium may ultimately delay the
member congregations’ governance of Synod or of their respective districts—perhaps, ultimately,
unfavorably or unnecessarily—their rights under the Constitution are not diminished by granting them the
choice, under the properly-actuated mechanism provided in Const. Art. XI B 8, of how best to maintain that
right in the face of a risk not contemplated in the constitutional language—namely, the risk that their
inability to meet legally, prudently, and reasonably on schedule could submit their triennial governance
opportunity, at least on the district level, to futility.
When unforeseen circumstances arise that threaten the member congregations’ ability to realize, legally,
prudently, or reasonably, regular conventions (Synod or district) on the triennial schedule, it is consistent
with the purpose of Const. Art. VIII A 1 for the member congregations of the Synod, using the mechanism
of Const. Art. XI B 8, to manage that threat by reaching the determination and effecting the outcome
proposed.
Question 3:

Is it consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod for the congregations, by
such a Const. Art. XI B 8 vote, also to extend the interval of an expanded triennium within
which the districts of the Synod are allowed to hold their district conventions to include
the two calendar years prior to the deferred Synod convention, thereby not invalidating any
potentially actionable and desirable convention plans already made, while extending the
window of possibility for all districts?

Opinion:
Such an action, given the above and that Const. Art. XII 13 explicitly contemplates
exceptions to the rule that “regular sessions of the districts are held in the year immediately preceding the
general convention of the Synod” as capable of being made “by the Synod,” is consistent with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
Guidance on implications of the above three questions:
The commission notes that if the question of deferring the 2022 Synod convention to 2023 and extending
the window for prior district conventions to include calendar years 2021 and 2022 is put to the
congregations, and especially if the vote is in the affirmative, this will necessitate many decisions about the

CCM Minutes – November 23, 2020 – Page 55