# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 3 1997_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

in question three does not constitute a "responsible exchange of opinion" [emphasis added] or involves
general church news of interest to the Synod.
Having said this, the Commission is concerned that executive power not be exercised to the extent that
it deprives the members of the Synod of the benefit of receiving various points of view, having access
to general church news of interest to the Synod, or deprives an accused individual of the right of
defense. The history surrounding the founding of the Synod provides adequate evidence for such
concern. If it is believed by a member or members that this is occurring, the remedy is identified above.
The better approach; an alternative to censorship, would be a discussion of the rationale for including or
not including certain letters to the editor on a given subject, publication of articles on such subject, or
that a notice be printed in a specific form. It is assumed that all parties involved are concerned about the
welfare of the Church and that in most, if not all, cases agreement can be reached regarding the printing
of certain materials.
During discussion of the proposed response, it was suggested that reference needed to be made to Bylaw
3.101, h and i, which indicate that supervision of the President is to be in accordance with the "Constitution,
Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod, and in accordance with the decisions of the boards and commissions
under which the executives serve and of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Actions of the President regarding such decisions of boards or commissions are subject to appeal." It was
also noted that "The President shall normally consult with the Vice-Presidents, as elected advisers,
whenever important and difficult synodical and inter-synodical questions and problems arise." The
discussion indicated that these points might be included within point one of the proposed response. It was
further noted that some reference should be made to Article XI of the Constitution which states:
1. The officers of the Synod must assume only such rights as have been expressly conferred upon them
by the Synod, and in everything pertaining to their rights and the performance of their duties they
are responsible to the Synod.
2. The Synod at all times has the right to call its officers to account and, if circumstances require it, to
remove them from office in accordance with Christian procedure.
Further discussion referred to the fact that in ecclesial matters, the balance of power tips to the President
and there are specific procedures for expressing dissent. Further, it was noted that the President is not
intended to be the editor and that any directives would be given only in unusual and extreme circumstances.
The Commission was unable to reach final agreement on a response and concluded that the matter should
be discussed further and a decision made at its next meeting.
102. Unionism - Bringing Charges (Ag. 2074): A pastor had forwarded a request to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters for an opinion in relation to ten questions which he posed. The ten questions were as
follows:
1. As traditionally understood by Synod, both as regards doctrinal teaching in her seminaries, official
publications, and the resolutions of Synod, what is the definition of the term "unionism"?
2. Is the Brief Statement accepted as binding within the Missouri Synod? If so, does paragraph 28, page
13 speak of "sin" where it says, "We repudiate unionism, that is, church-fellowship with the
adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God's command, as causing divisions in the church,
Rom. 16:17; 2 John 9, 10, and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely,
2 Tim. 2:17-21"?