# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 11 12 1976_S11
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Resolved, That if a District president cannot in good conscience uphold the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod, which he has sworn to do at the time of his installation, and that if he cannot
refrain from ordaining or authorizing the ordination of candidates for the holy ministry who have
not received endorsement for ordination through the duly authorized synodical process, then the
said District president, for the peace and the good order of the Synod, shall resign from the office
of District president.
7. These five resolves set forth self-evident truths. The Synod is not a federation of Districts.
Districts are not independent, self-governing units, free to set up their own standards and principles in
opposition to those of the Synod. The office of District president does not derive from the pastoral office
entrusted to the congregations; nor is it created by a District; it is an ecclesiastical office created; defined,
and regulated by the Synod. In granting to its Districts the privilege of electing the District president the
Synod did not surrender its rights with respect to its Districts and the offices created by the Synod for its
Districts. Indeed, one might say that the Synod elects the District presidents through its members within
that District (Bylaw 3.07a). Districts and District officials are not free to violate the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod and to act autonomously contrary to the resolutions of the Synod which under
Section 3.07a are binding on Districts.
8. In ordaining or consenting to the ordination of candidates not declared qualified by the Synod
the District presidents violate not only the Bylaws, as is often suggested in a somewhat condescending
manner, but also the Constitution of the Synod, specifically Article XI, A, 1 and Article XII, 9 a and c
quoted in Point 2 above.
9. Resolves 6, 7, and 8 detail the procedures which are to be followed in implementing Resolution
5-02A. Pastoral care and admonition are prescribed. Stated compliance with the resolution is required.
The Commission holds that such a statement of compliance is proper and can reasonably be expected of
anyone who fills a synodical office. To say that it is unnecessary would fly in the face of the hard realities
confronting the Synod today.
10. Neither a District president nor the President of the Synod has the right to set aside a resolution
of the Synod. In the implementation of any resolution all of the objectives of the resolution must be
understood and pursued. The last resolve of Resolution 5-02A reads as follows:
"Resolved, That this convention assure each of the said District Presidents of its genuine brotherly
love and concern and its desire to continue to recognize him as a Christian brother."
It is apparent that the objectives of the resolution include both the gaining of the brother who has erred
and the maintenance of constitutional government, without which the Synod would fall apart. A
constitutional government among brothers and sisters in Christ, among whom love and concern are the
motivating factors, is built upon the trust that all will honor their word and their commitment and will not
be a law unto themselves. "Love does not insist on its own way." (I Cor. 13:5)
11. In answer to one pointed issue, the Commission holds that there is no real distinction between
"authorizing" and "permitting" or "acknowledging" or "consenting to" or "affirming" or "reporting" an
unconstitutional ordination. Any such action is a violation of the District president's constitutional duties
and responsibilities and of Resolution 5-02A. Furthermore, when a District president actually participates
directly or indirectly to any extent in such an improper ordination the only element seemingly missing in
the District president's responsibility for ordinations (Art. XII, 9, c, Bylaw 4.17) is a signature on a form!
It seems obvious, and the Commission so holds, that any conduct on the part of a District president which
would be less than an active witness against the action with subsequent counseling, admonition, and
follow-through in such situations is a violation of his constitutional duties and responsibilities.