# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 26 2000_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

An official of the Synod, in a September 21, 2000 letter to the Commission, calls attention to an action
taken by a District convention which contains an “expression of dissent” to the current synodical position
regarding communion practice. He requests a ruling on the following question:
QUESTION: “Since a district of the synod is in reality ‘synod in that place,’ may a district take
official action to file an expression of dissent to a doctrine or practice of the synod.
Members of the synod have the privilege of doing so, but a district is not a member
of the synod?”
Opinion: Bylaw 2.39, c, describes the procedure for dissent to doctrinal resolutions of the Synod by
members of the Synod. Districts are not members of the Synod but are divisions of the Synod, “the
geographical boundaries of which are determined by the Synod and are altered by it according to
circumstances” (Article XII, 1). “The Synod establishes Districts in order more effectively to achieve its
objections and carry on its activities” (Bylaw 4.01). As such, Districts “as component parts of the Synod
are obligated to carry out the resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.05, f). An official action by a District,
therefore, to file an expression of dissent to the Synod regarding a doctrine taught and practiced by the
Synod is out of order and, therefore, null and void.
178. Question Regarding Resignations of Board and Commission Members (00-2213)
In a memorandum dated September 26, 2000, the Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations (CTCR) forwarded an action of that Commission at its September 21-23 meeting, as
follows:
“Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and Church Relations respectfully follow
the informal opinions of the CCM dated 9/12 and 9/15/2000 regarding the resignation of
George Dolak from the CTCR as those opinions apply to the September meeting of the
CTCR; and that further, because of respectful dissent, that the CTCR, in the best interest
of the Synod for future situations, request a formal opinion of the CCM regarding bylaw
3.59 as it applies to incumbents serving until the successor assumes office.”
The CTCR is questioning an informal opinion provided by the chairman and secretary of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters, which interprets the final sentence of Bylaw 3.59 as not applying to situations
where a resignation has occurred but only to “the normal changes that take place after regular elections”
(Letter to Director of CTCR from Secretary of CCM). The question before the Commission on
Constitutional Matters is therefore:
QUESTION: “The CTCR, in the best interest of the Synod for future situations, request a formal
opinion of the CCM regarding bylaw 3.59 as it applies to incumbents serving until
the successor assumes office.”
Opinion: Bylaw 3.59, b, which speaks of members of elected boards assuming office following their
elections at conventions, adds in its final sentence, “Incumbents shall serve until their successors assume
office.” Persons leaving office in this case continue to be suited to serve except that their terms of office
have ended, potentially a very different situation from that of a resignation from office which can be the
result of many different causes.
The Commission supports the informal decision provided by its officers that the final sentence of Bylaw
3.59, b, refers only to the normal changes that take place after regular elections and not to changes as a
result of resignations. In the case of the latter, a resignation is to be considered as final, at which time the
position that has been vacated remains vacant until it has again been properly filled.
179. Question Regarding Representation at Circuit Forums (00-2214)
187