# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S482 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 484 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS body or to be under the ecclesiastical supervision of another church body. May 17, 1974 Implementation of Resolutions The question has been asked how much evangelical free- dom officers of the Synod and of the Districts have in holding in abeyance the implementation of highly controversial resolu- tions of conventions. In its meeting on May 16—17, 1974, the Commission on Constitutional Matters adopted the following ruling: Article XI B 4 states: ‘‘The President shall see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out.” Article XII 9 in speak- ing of the responsibilities of District presidents also says that they are to “see to it that all resolutions of the Synod which concern the Districts are made known to the Districts and are carried out by them.” The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that the words “‘shall see to it’ do not permit vacillation or delay but im- pose upon every President, synodical or District, a responsi- bility which he must expeditiously discharge. It should also be noted that “resolutions of the Synod are binding on the Districts” (Bylaw 3.07 a). In this connection the Commission on Constitutional Matters reiterates its opinion, issued in 1966, Opinion with Regard to the Basic Relationship Between the Synod and the Districts of the Synod. May 17, 1974 Constitutional Ruling on CTCR “Guiding Principles for the Use of A Statement” The question has been raised in connection with A State- ment, “May a doctrinal formulation which is not specifically named in Article II of the synodical Constitution be used as a test of orthodoxy in the Missouri Synod?”’ The particular concern is with regard to the statement on page 7 of the CTCR ‘Guiding Principles for the Use of A State- ment of Scriptural and Confessional Principles,” Principle 5 d: “Congregations or agencies of the Synod who are calling pastors, teachers, or professors to serve them are entitled to know and free to inquire whether persons under consideration for a call or appointment do in fact honor and uphold A Statement.” If this were interpreted to mean that an individual is re- quired to sign A Statement. it could be construed as a test of orthodoxy and would constitute an improper binding of the conscience. However, Guiding Principle 5 d must be under- stood to refer to the individual's public teaching. Repeatedly the Synod has besought its members by the mercies of God to uphold the synodically adopted doctrinal statements and in Resolution 2-21 of the Milwaukee convention the Synod has said “to honor and uphold means not merely to examine and study” the synodically adopted doctrinal statements “but to support, act, and teach in accordance with them until they have been shown to be contrary to God’s Word.” In this sense con- gregations or agencies of the Synod are entitled to know and are free to inquire whether persons under consideration for a call or appointment do in fact honor and uphold a synodically adopted doctrinal statement and are willing to teach publicly in harmony with it. May 17, 1974 Constitutional Opinion re Campus Ministries During recent years several joint enterprises for carrying on campus ministry have been developed in several of the Districts of the Synod. Descriptions of these ventures have ranged from “purely administrative” to ‘joint ministry in Word and Sacra- ment.” From several different directions, specifically from those involved in the work and from the Board for Missions and its staff, the Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked to render a constitutional opinion. The commission has studied the various actions taken by recent conventions of the Synod. It has received voluminous documentation from various sources in support of varying points of view. It has reviewed the instruments by which some of these joint enterprises are governed. It has sought the guidance of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations with reference to the “theological” and “church relations” aspects of these matters. The Commission on Constitutional Matters has arrived at the following conclusions: 1. The Synod has indeed entrusted campus work to its Districts. 2. The Synod, however, retains at all times to itself jurisdic- tion with respect to everything which is administered by or for the entire Synod, including “conduct of negotiations and affilia- tions with other church bodies” (Bylaws 1.21, 3.07). 3. The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that joint campus worship communities and joint campus ministries of Word and Sacrament with church groups with which the Synod has not as yet established fellowship relations are improper in the light of Article III 1: Article VI 2; Bylaws 1.21, 3.07. 4. The commission also rules that it is improper for a Lu- theran Church— Missouri Synod congregation to hold member- ship also in another church body or to be under the ecclesiastical supervision of another church body. 5. Districts are free to deal with representatives of other church bodies in purely administrative matters (e. g., comity arrangements, sharing of facilities, publicity, etc.) which do not involve joint ministry of Word and Sacrament. 6. Whether special administrative units need to be called into being for such purely administrative purposes may be left to the discretion of the Districts. In many instances these may well prove to be superfluous. May 17, 1974 Opinion re Resolve No.6 of New Orleans Resolution 1-06 The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked to interpret the following paragraph of New Orleans Resolution 1-06: 6. Resolved. That the members of the Board for Missions refrain from involving themselves in the supervision and counseling of missionaries and sister churches which is properly the function of the mission staff. The commission resolved to answer as follows: The commission interprets Resolve No.6 to mean that in- dividual members of the board should not supervise or counsel missionaries and sister churches but that this is a prerogative of the board itself which is usually delegated to the staff but which may be delegated by the board to members of the board or other individuals. The commission suggests that the petitioners might wish to discuss some of their practical questions with the chairman of the Board for Missions or with the Acting Executive Secretary. Dec. 6—7, 1974 Ruling re Election of Convention Delegates The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked to rule on certain procedures followed in constituting circuit meetings which elected delegates to the convention of the Synod. Since voting delegates (pastoral and lay) do not represent Districts but represent member congregations of the Synod, the commission rules as follows: 1. A District does not have the right to prescribe who is to represent a member congregation at a circuit meeting which is to elect delegates to a synodical convention. 2. A member congregation has the right to determine its own procedures as to how such representatives are to be chosen. 3. In the circuits where these principles have not been