# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S207 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 207 position of the Synod and sets forth the public teaching of the Synod. The adoption of Resolution 3-01 by the Synod does not bind the individual conscience any more than any other human document can: only Scripture should bind the conscience. As Luther stated before the Diet of Worms: Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe neither in the Pope nor Councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contra- dicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen. To the person troubled in his conscience, the Synod says: If a member cannot for conscience sake accept a doctrinal resolution of the Synod, he has the obligation and opportunity through mutually approved procedure to challenge such a resolution with a view of effecting the changes he deems necessary. Failing in that. he is completely free by reason of his wholly voluntary association with the Synod to obey his conscience and disassociate himself from the Synod. Meanwhile every member of the Synod is held to abide by, act, and teach in accordance with the Synod’s resolutions. ‘Mil- waukee Resolution 2-21, 1971 Proceedings. page 119} Subscription to A Statement cannot be a requirement for membership in the Synod. However, already at the Cleveland convention in 1962 the Synod resolved ‘‘that the Synod beseech all its members by the mercies of God to honor and uphold the doctrinal content of these synodically adopted statements” (Cleveland Resolution 3-17, 1962 Proceedings. page 106). And “to honor and uphold means not merely to examine and study them, but to support, act, and teach in accordance with them until they have been shown to be contrary to God's Word.” (Milwaukee Resolution 2-21) Il. Resolution 3-09 Even though the language of Resolution 3-09 seems to be confusing at times, the commission, which has already ruled earlier on Resolution 3-09, would state once again that the Synod has the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions and in such resolutions to reject certain doctrinal positions. Resolution 3-09 rejects what has been referred to as a “faculty majority position.” It is the responsibility of the Board of Control of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, to determine which individuals fall under the judgment of Resolution 3-09 and what kind of action needs to be taken. Beyond that point, avenues of appeal are still available to those to whom the judg- ment of the resolution may be applied. Resolution 3-09 there- fore does not do violence to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Its implementation, however, has been made difficult, perhaps even impossible, by the withdrawal of most faculty members. IV. Proposal Since questions regarding doctrinal resolutions and state- ments have been distressing the Synod at least since 1953 and have contributed to the unrest within the synodical fellowship, the Commission on Constitutional Matters will recommend to the 1975 convention the appointment of a special committee to draft a proposed addition to the Handbook in order to set forth clearly: a. The status of doctrinal statements as distinguished from the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions: b. The procedures for adoption of such statements: c. The procedures for proper expression of dissent and possible revision. Report of Committee for Reorganization and Constitution Review Committee The New Orleans convention provided for the appointment of two committees to study the Constitution and certain struc- tural and administrative matters of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod. The first, a more minor assignment, was given to the committee in Res. 4-43 (Proceedings. 1973, p. 160), while a much greater assignment was embedded in Res. 5-28 ( Proceed- ings. 1973, p.172), which established a ‘Constitutional Com- mittee.’ The first resolution authorized the President to appoint the committee. while the second authorized the Board of Directors to constitute such a committee. The first resolution gave specific assignments, to be dealt with later in this report, while the second resolution established a task force to consider: 1. A study of the Constitution itself to determine whether possible clarification or additional articles are necessary: 2. A study of the Bylaws for clarification, better coordination, and simplification: 3. A study of the Synod’s organization and structure. In addition, the task force to study the Constitution in the same resolution was asked to “bring its recommendations to the 1975 convention, and in succeeding conventions.” This task force, it was assumed, would not be able to complete its assign- ment within a biennium. The two appointing authorities, namely the President and the Board of Directors, coordinated their responsibilities and appointed a single committee consisting of the following mem- bers: Harry G. Barr, Wilbert E. Griesse, John Jass, Herbert Mueller, Harold Olsen, Paul Picard, Ralph Reinke, Herman C. Scherer, August R. Suelflow, Edwin C. Weber, and Paul A. Zimmermann. Two special consultants were also appointed, namely John P. Schuelke and Delphin Schulz. Since its appointment the committee, with the combined responsibilities, met 11 times during the biennium. At its first meeting the committee orga- nized for action and elected Herbert Mueller chairman, Herman C. Scherer vice-chairman, and Aug. R. Suelflow secretary. Barely had the committee begun its work when the Board of Directors assigned no less than 24 New Orleans convention resolutions to it which had been referred to the Board of Direc- tors under Omnibus Res. 4-47 (Proceedings. 1973, pp. 160-61). These carry-over resolutions are all included in the supplement of the convention Workbook and hence do not appear in this report. In view of these referred resolutions, therefore, the Com- mittee was confronted with three major assignments. In spite of the meetings which were held on a virtually bimonthly basis, the committee found it impossible to examine all three assign- ments thoroughly: nevertheless, it had the advantage of viewing the individual pieces in the context of the constitutional review in which it engaged, and like its predecessor committee, worked with the principle that faith produces works of service and ministry and that such services develop the forms or channels for a church body like The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod in its efforts to gear itself to a more effective and efficient instru- ment in developing a variety of gifts and ministries while at the same time striving to serve and to reach out with the precious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in a world in which most distances have been eliminated, communications are virtually instantaneous, and where daily we are encouraged in the words of our Savior: “I must work the works of Him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” ‘John 9:4). But we are also reassured by Him: ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). The committee wrestled with many problems within the focus and framework of its assignments. The members applied themselves, always discussing principles relating to the synod- ical structure in their historical context, but ministering in the contemporary. In the pursuit of its assignments it also inter- viewed many department heads in order to obtain their “input” and reactions to proposals. Differences of opinion surfaced, but at the same time these were discussed extensively, and con- sequently the committee experienced a high degree of con- sensus. We express gratitude to our Lord, whose blessings have permitted the committee to work together harmoniously. With the vast assignments before it, the committee realized that it would be impossible to give equal attention, during this biennium, to all of them and consequently presents this report in two parts: I. Some specific recommendations for adoption by the convention, and II. Suggestions that some elements receive additional study.