# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S248 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 248 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS WHEREAS, It has been stated by at least one other District President that he intends to bring action against District Presi- dents who have ordained or installed graduates of Seminex; and WHEREAS, The President of the New Jersey District has called to the attention of the congregations in New Jersey and the President of the Synod that in the light of Article VII of the Constitution “to bar one hundred eight candidates from the ministry who have completed three and three quarter years of training at the 801 DeMun campus and their final two or three months of Seminary training in a Seminary in Exile, because they protested the condemnation of their professors as false teachers .. . is neither Scriptural nor Confessional”; and WHEREAS, A harmonious plan of placement of all candidates from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Concordia Seminary, Springfield, and Seminex had been agreed upon, which was later frustrated by the unilaterial decision of Concordia Semi- nary, St. Louis; and WHEREAS, We seek a harmonious recognition of fraternity within the Synod and feel the removal from office or the dis- cipline of the synodical convention against the Presidents of individual Districts over this matter would be in violation of that spirit of fraternity and would tend to work against the autonomy of the individual congregations within District: therefore be it Resolved, That all efforts to censure, reprimand, or remove from office President Walter Zeile of the New Jersey District and other District Presidents because of their act of ordaining and/or installing graduates of the 1974 class of Seminex be repudiated and the Synod as an act of reconciliation go on record as discouraging and deploring any further efforts of reprisal against these leaders of our church’s Districts. Redeemer Lutheran Church Newton, N. J. Gus Gewecke, President Bruce E. Rudolf, Pastor 3-111 To Reject CCM’s ‘Opinion re: Removal of District Presidents from Office” WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod on Feb. 21, 1975, issued an “Opinion Re: Removal of District Presidents from Office”: and WHEREAS, This opinion deals with constitutional matters that are of crucial importance to the life and work of the Synod: and WHEREAS, Opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters ‘‘shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a Synodical Convention” (2.107 e): and WHEREAS, Some portions of this opinion conflict with the Constitution of the Synod: 1. In 1, A, 2 the opinion states: ‘‘The Constitution of the Synod provides for the adoption of Bylaws. All duly and regu- larly adopted Bylaws which remain in force and effect are an extension of the Constitution.’ While the Constitution of the Synod may assume the adoption of Bylaws (see Articles X, XI, XID), it does not in fact provide for the adoption of Bylaws. Only the Articles of Incorporation of the Synod do that (Art. VII). Nor does the Constitution allow the judgment that Bylaws “are an extension of the Constitution.” Rather the Constitution is silent and does not define the status or nature of Bylaws. By its opinion the Commission on Constitutional Matters gives Bylaws a status equal to the status of the Constitution, for the Commission on Constitutional Matters makes violations of Bylaws tantamount to violations of the Constitution and there- fore due cause for expulsion from the Synod. The Constitution forbids such a judgment on the part of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. a. Article XI B 1 and 2 directs the President of the Synod to see to it that specifically named officers of the Synod are to “act in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution.” There is no directive or authority regarding enforcement of Bylaws. b. Article VII gives to member congregations of the Synod certain discretionary powers. In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical gov- ernment exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation's right of self-government it is but an advisory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inex- pedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned. Since Bylaws are a form of synodical resolutions, it is logical to assume that member congregations have been guaranteed the freedom to determine whether or not conditions make it expedient or not for the congregation to carry out specific Bylaws. c. Article XIII establishes the basis and the procedure for expulsion from the Synod. This Article cites Article VI and the conditions for membership. Nowhere do these articles say or imply that violation of Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod becomes due cause for expulsion from the Synod. d. Article III 8. This states as one of the objects of the Synod “the protection of pastors, teachers, and congregations in the performance of their duties and the maintenance of their rights.” Article XI B 1 and 2 make it clear that officers of the Synod are to act in accordance with the Constitution, including the objects of the Synod. Obviously the Constitution does not provide that officers can be expelled from the Synod for discharging their duties as outlined in Article III 8. e. By its opinion the Commission on Constitutional Matters has in effect amended the Constitution of the Synod without observing the procedures for doing so as required by Article XIV. (In a similar situation the Synod in its convention of 1962 declared Resolution 9 of its 1959 convention to be unconstitu- tional because the adoption of that resolution had the effect of amending the Constitution without following the procedures prescribed for such amendments. 2. In I A9 the Commission on Constitutional Matters under- takes an interpretation of Bylaw 5.13. That Bylaw says in part In the event that the District President is disqualified or unable to act, the First Vice-President or the next qualified District officer shall be authorized to suspend and to submit the case to the Com- mission of Adjudication as herein provided. If the District officers fail to act, the President of the Synod, by virtue of the power given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1-3, inclusive), may on his own initiative institute proceedings, take ad- ministrative action, and, if necessary, present charges to the appro- priate District Commission of Adjudication. .. . In its opinion the Commission on Constitutional Matters goes beyond those clear statements of Bylaw 5-13. The Commission says in part . or if, in the opinion of the complainants, the said District Vice- President failed to give serious consideration to the complaint and/or treated the complaint in a sham or frivolous manner, then the com- plainants may present the complaint to the President of the Synod, who shall review the substance and the facts of the complaint and review the actions of the said District Vice-President which were taken in regard to the complaint, and if the President of the Synod determines that the said District Vice-President failed to act at all, or failed to give serious consideration to the complaint, and/or treated the complaint in a sham or frivolous manner... . a. This statement in the opinion exceeds the clear state- ments of Bylaw 5.13. Further, there is no warrant by implica- tion in Bylaw 5.13 or in other portions of the Constitution and Bylaws which permit a complainant to circumvent the structure and procedures of the Synod to secure another hearing on the basis of a subjective judgment that an official of the Synod has treated his case “in a sham or frivolous manner.” b. This statement in the opinion exceeds the authority of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Bylaw 2.107 e stipu- lates that the Commission on Constitutional Matters ‘shall interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. ...” The Commission on Constitutional Matters has arrogated to itself a legislative power which the Synod has reserved to itself. Without constitutional or convention authorization, the Com- mission has in this instance altered and added to the Bylaws of the Synod. c. This statement in the opinion violates those provisions of the Constitution by which the Synod has created its own structure for supervision. That structure does not allow for members of the Synod to circumvent the officials and the pro-