# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 5 1992_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

from the Texas District Constitution Committee which still has the ultimate responsibility for making a
recommendation regarding acceptance of the congregational constitution. (Check out hand written
notes in the original page 6 of this document)
In an effort to be helpful, the Commission notes the following:
2.

The congregation has the right of self-government as is stated in the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod.

2.

The congregation is the body which has the authority to issue calls for ordained or commissioned
ministers and to appoint or elect officers and/or other church workers.

2.

The process which is proposed in the bylaw is in harmony with the procedures for dispute
resolution adopted at the 1992 synodical convention which urged congregations to adopt the process
for themselves in attempts to resolve disputes. (Check out hand written notes in the original page
6 of this document)

2.

The causes for removal from a position or the rescinding of a can would seem to be legitimate
causes from a scriptural point of view. If, however, the real question is one of legitimacy, not one of
authority, the matter could best be referred to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
which has the responsibility for providing opinions on theological issues. (Check out hand written
notes in the original page 6 of this document)

14. Congregation Bylaw Approval (Ag. 1940) :The District Committee on Constitutional Matters of the
California-Nevada-Hawaii District had asked for counsel particularly regarding the matter of women
serving as president, vice president or elder as it related to congregational constitutions and bylaws.
In a personal response, the Secretary had stated the following:
First, the bylaws of the congregation need not contain specific references to positions which women may
or may not hold in the congregation. I would observe, however, that it is helpful if they are stated.
Nevertheless, it must be said that it is not required.
Second, it must be said with equal force that, whether stated or not, congregations who are members of
the Synod are expected to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod. Resolutions relating to positions
which women should not hold are those which involve the public functions of the pastoral office as
DCCM has noted. I have included various materials from actions of the Synod in the past which, among
other things, include an opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, stating that women ought
not serve as elders or congregation chairman. Please note that it states that this is an opinion de humano
not de jure divino meaning that it is the understanding of the Synod that the scriptural passages would
lead to the conclusion stated. Over the years, this opinion has been supported by a number of conventions.
It must also be pointed out, however, that questions continue to arise and the Synod in convention, while
urging congregations to follow the opinion of the CCM, adopted resolutions responding to the questions
which call for continued study. In the most recent convention, a resolution was adopted titled, "To Urge
Completion of Study on Service of Women in All Congregational Offices."
In view of all of the above, I believe that what is most disturbing is the view which seems to say that even
though the Synod may have adopted certain positions, we will not be bound by them because we have a
different understanding. Perhaps that is reading more into the response to your suggestions than was
meant by the congregation. If not, it is the attitude which is reflected which seems to run directly counter