# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 6 1988_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

RE: To Encourage the Practice of Close Communion
1. WHEREAS, The LCMS has established a position on close communion by synodical
resolutions (1967 Res. 2-19; 1969 Res. 3-18 and 1981 Res. 3-01), be it therefore
2. Resolved, That the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the LCMS continue to encourage
congregations to observe the provisions of 1967 Res. 2-19 to wit "that pastors and
congregations of the LCMS, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of
pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with
us."
An opinion had been requested as to whether this did not place the district on record as being in
opposition to the Synod regarding the practice of open/ close communion. The questions were also asked
whether Res. 2-02 of the CNH District was in keeping with theological/constitutional position of the
Synod and what the result of its defeat would be.
The Commission agreed that the defeat of the resolution did not necessarily mean that the district opposed
the resolution. It concluded that, for example, there might be those who voted against it because, in their
view, to vote for it would imply that the proper practice was not being followed. The defeat of the
resolution does not change position of the Synod, and there is no way of knowing what the result of its
defeat will be. The Commission therefore decided to respond by saying that, "A district convention does
not have authority to add to, detract from, or restate a position of the Synod. The passage or non-passage
is a nullity. It in no way effects the position of the Synod or the district on this issue."
107. District President - Advisory Committee (Ag. 1838) : At its district convention, the North Dakota
District had adopted a resolution stating:
WHEREAS, The district president needs support, guidance, encouragement, and evaluation on a
continuing basis, therefore be it
Resolved, That this convention authorize the Board of Directors to appoint a committee of three
(two pastors and a layman) to serve in the support capacity in the name of the district and be
accountable to the Board of Directors, and be it finally
Resolved, That the district president receive this committee as a helpful advisory service to his
ministry.
The Commission had been asked to review this resolution and to determine whether it was in conflict
with any portion of the synodical Handbook as it relates to the office of the district president. Upon
review, the Commission notes that while the bylaws are silent with regard to the responsibilities of district
vice presidents, Bylaw 3.125 specifically states that vice presidents shall be elected advisors of the
President of the Synod. Furthermore, they are to assist or represent him as requested. In a parallel way, it
may be assumed that the district vice presidents have the same functions..
In reviewing the Bylaws, the Commission finds that there is no provision for an advisory committee of
the nature specified in the resolution. Not only may the appointment of such a committee result in a
usurping of the authority of the district vice presidents, but the establishment of such a committee will
result in a blurring of the delegation of authority and lines of responsibility.
108. Voting Eligibility (Ag. 1841) : The Commission had received a request to respond to the following
three questions: