# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S484
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

486 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS

few are obligated to respect the “rules” as well as are the
“many” who, too, are “people.”

The “rules” which the Synod has adopted for its self-gov-
ernment are primarily its Constitution and its Bylaws.

III. “But the Bylaws are not applicable
to our present situation."

This assertion is made especially with reference to the
establishment of Seminex and to the certification, placement,
calling, ordination, and installation of Seminex graduates.

The commission holds that the argument is invalid. To say
that ‘‘no one ever anticipated such a situation’’ does net mean
that the Constitution and Bylaws do not apply. On the contrary,
the Bylaws do indeed speak directly and clearly to the issue
confronting us today. The question is not: “How may Seminex
students be qualified for the ministry in The Lutheran Church
— Missouri Synod?” The question rather is: ‘‘How has the Synod
decided that it wishes to have pastors trained, qualified, called,
ordained, and installed in its congregations?” In answer to that
question the Synod has spoken again and again. Perhaps no
other subject receives as much attention in the Bylaws. The
Synod has stated in great detail that it will train its own pastors,
set its own requirements, do its own certifying, etc. In short,
the Synod has made it plain that it will not permit a small group
within the Synod to usurp these functions which the Synod has
reserved to itself.

Furthermore, it is not correct to say that Bylaws apply only
to ordinary but not to extraordinary situations. Such an asser-
tion forgets that one of the principal reasons that an organiza-
tion drafts a Constitution and Bylaws is to set forth already in
advance the guidelines for its conduct in the future, so that it
will not find it necessary to make basic decisions in an ad hoc
and emotionally charged situation.

IV. “Under Article VII congregations
are completely autonomous."

Especially the Apology to the Augsburg Confession is quoted
in this connection. A few familiar quotations from Walther are
also usually ushered in support of this thesis. (It may be noted
in passing that Dr. Walther also had some pointed things to say
about the responsibilities of congregations toward the other
members of the Synod.)

The difficulty lies in the word ‘‘completely,”’ whether it is
stated or, as more often, merely implied.

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does place great
stress on the autonomy of the local congregation. Let that be
emphasized. At the same time, however, it should be stated
that autonomy must be regarded in relative terms.

There is no absolute freedom this side of heaven. Every
freedom that men claim for themselves is only relative and is
circumscribed by one or more considerations. In various church
polities some forms of church government grant congregations
more autonomy than do others. Among the Baptists, for ex-
ample, there is a high degree of congregational autonomy. Also
among us. However, it is more exact to speak of Missouri Synod
polity as synodical polity rather than congregational polity. We
are primarily a federation or association of self-governing con-
gregations. But the very word “federation” or ‘‘association”
indicates that the “self-governing” aspect has some modifica-
tions. When a congregation joins the Synod it does give up
certain rights and privileges. For example, it may no longer
call in a completely unrestricted way whomever it wishes as
its pastor; it may no longer live only for itself and its own local
concerns; it may no longer use textbooks which are doctrinally
unsound for the instruction of its children; it may no longer
enter unilaterally into fellowship with other church bodies; etc.
As a congregation surrenders such “rights” it gains in reality
great benefits.

One of these benefits is the assurance that it will have as-
sistance in finding a pastor who will preach and teach the Word
of God in all its purity and administer the Sacraments according
to Christ’s institution. Indeed, this was one of the major con-
cerns when the Synod was organized, a concern which was
felt very keenly on the congregational level among the lay peo-
ple of that day. Consequently, even though there were Lutheran
colleges and seminaries availabie for the training of its pastors,
the Synod from the very beginning decided that it would train
its own pastors. In fact, even before the Synod was organized

some of the forefathers established a log cabin in Perry County,
Missouri, for this purpose.

Those rights which a congregation still retains are zealously
guarded. The Commission on Constitutional Matters has ruled
more than once in favor of the maintenance of the rights of a
self-governing congregation. It has held, for instance, that even
though the Synod may suspend a pastor from membership in
the Synod, only the congregation can decide whether it will
depose its pastur and retain its membership in the Synod or
whether it will retain its pastor and give up its synodical mem-
bership. This is a right which continues to belong to the con-
gregation. It must be admitted that sometimes the line of dis-
tinction between the rights of a congregation and the rights of
the Synod is somewhat blurred. Consequently, it is wholesome
for the Synod to be constantly concerned about respecting and
preserving whatever autonomy is guaranteed to its member
congregations. In the process, however, the case in behalf of
the autonomy of a local congregation must not be overstated.
That congregation, too, has made a solemn covenant with its
fellow member congregations of the Synod. Christians have the
right to expect that fellow Christians are persons of honor and
integrity who keep their word.

* * *

The Commission on Constitutional Matters submits these
comments in the hope that they will help to clarify some of the
issues confronting our church, to the end that we may walk
together in love as children of God who have assumed common
commitments in the service of our gracious Lord and Savior.

Oct. 11, 1974

Opinion re Removal of District
Presidents from Office

The synodical Commission of Adjudication has requested
the Commission on Constitutional Matters to rule on the removal
of District Presidents from office. This request stems from the
fact that the Commission of Adjudication has received several
requests to hear charges or to take action against certain Dis-
trict Presidents who, it is alleged, have failed to fulfill their
presidential responsibilities by failing to uphold the Constitution
and the Bylaws of the Synod.

Similar requests for constitutional rulings have also been
received from other sources.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters replies as follows:

I

A District President may be removed from office (A) as a
result of being expelled from membership in the Synod, or (B)
as a result of direct action of removal from office without ex-
pulsion from membership in the Synod.

A. Removal from Office
as a Result of Expulsion from Membership in the Synod

Article XIII 1 of the Constitution of the Synod says: ““Mem-
bers who act contrary to the confession laid down in Article II
and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI
or persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after previous futile
admonition, be expelled from the Synod.” The point at issue
in this connection is “offensive conduct.” Can failure to carry
out the Bylaws of the Synod be termed “offensive conduct” in
the sense of Article XIII? The CCM notes the following:

1. It is the duty of the President of the Synod to see to it
that all officers of the Synod, all such as are employed by the
Synod, the individual Districts of the Synod, and all District
Presidents of the Synod act in accordance with the Synod’s
Constitution (Constitution Article XI B 1 and 2).

2. The Constitution of the Synod provides for the adoption
of Bylaws. All duly and regularly adopted Bylaws which remain
in force and effect are an extension of the Constitution. The
President of the Synod has a duty to see to it that:

a. all officers of the Synod,

b. all such as are employed by the Synod,

c. the individual Districts of the Synod,
and

d. all District Presidents