# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 3 11 1975_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

458. Cleveland Opinion re San Francisco Res. #9 (Ag. 848): Committee #3 reported that an individual
had quoted the following sentence from a 1962 ruling of the CCM: "It necessarily follows that in order to
make any other confessional or doctrinal statement binding upon the members of the Synod, the statement
must be made a part of the Constitution." He had inquired whether this opinion had ever been overruled
by a convention of the Synod and if not, whether that 1962 opinion did not have something to say about
the current resolutions and opinions. After considerable discussion the commission adopted the following:
Constitutional Opinion of 1962 re Binding Nature of Doctrinal Statements
Attention has been called to the fact 1) that an opinion of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters in 1962 stated in part: "It necessarily follows that in order to make any other confessional
or doctrinal statement binding upon the members of the Synod, the statement must be made a part
of the Constitution," and 2) that seemingly no subsequent convention has overruled that opinion.
The question has therefore been raised as to the status of present actions with respect to doctrinal
statements and resolutions.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters holds that its 1974 "Constitutional Opinion re New
Orleans Resolutions 2-12, 3-01, and 3-09" is adequate to answer this concern. The CCM adds the
following comments:
1) The commission sees no conflict between the 1962 and 1974 opinions. The latter is a more
specific delineation of the status of doctrinal resolutions (e.g., they do not add to the
confessional basis of Article II; they are not binding per se in their entirety; subscription
cannot be made a requirement of membership).
2) It should be noted that in line with that process of development the CCM itself has asked
the Synod in the 1974 opinion to take steps toward further delineation and refinement.
3) It should be remembered that the status of doctrinal statements is not a new issue but that
the Synod has wrestled with this issue in almost every convention since 1962 and has taken
actions which in effect further interpret its Constitution.
4) It should also be noted that the Synod has the final voice in settling constitutional questions
and that it has the right to overrule or modify opinions of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters.
459. Former Faculty Members, St. Louis (Ag. 849): Committee #3, with reference to its proposed
Resolution 3-03, had also asked the commission about the role of the synodical President in the proposed
resolution, whether this was permissible or not. After detailed discussion the commission came to the
following conclusion for transmittal to the committee:
Interviewing Former Faculty Members, St. Louis (N.O. Res. 3-09)
It is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the responsibility should be
placed into the hands of the Missouri District President under whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction the
faculty members stood at that time. In this instance the Missouri District President is not involved
in a conflict of interest situation since no decision was made in this instance by the Board of
Control.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters is of the opinion that in view of the large number
of individuals involved, it would be permissible to stipulate in the convention resolution that the