LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 216

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

216

Ecclesial matters

the CCM opinions in question on constitutional grounds. Instead, it
referred the pertinent overtures to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations (CTCR) for theological study and a report to the
2010 convention (Res. 8-10, 2007 Convention Proceedings, p. 166).
Nonetheless, a substantive case can be made from the Synod’s
Constitution to urge the 2010 convention to overrule these CCM opinions. Such substantive constitutional rationale follows:
1. The CCM has created the possibility that the Synod could be
precluded from taking action against one of its members who
is indeed acting contrary to the conditions of membership
stated in Constitution Art. VI. Thereby, the CCM has in
effect amended Article XIII of the Constitution, which states
that such members shall be expelled after previous futile
admonition. The CCM says that such members shall not be
expelled if they have followed the advice of their ecclesiastical
supervisors.
2. With its binding opinion that members of the Synod cannot
be charged if they violate the Constitution if acting according
to the advice of their ecclesiastical supervisors, the CCM has
granted district presidents and other ecclesiastical supervisors a
new power. These ecclesiastical supervisors now have the right
to provide a measure of impunity for those who violate the
Constitution! No constitution is being treated as a constitution
if it may be so violated.
3. Moreover, the Constitution of the Synod states, “The officers
of the Synod must assume only such rights as have been
expressly conferred upon them by the Synod” (Art. XI A
1). The Synod has not expressly conferred upon any of its
officers the right to provide anyone with immunity from being
charged or expelled from the Synod. The CCM’s argument
in Opinion 02-2309 is an inference. The CCM’s inferential
argument, however, must yield to the Synod’s explicit words in
Constitution Art. XI A 1.
(It should be noted that in addition to the officers of the Synod
listed by position in Article X A, the CCM has opined—and its
opinion has not been overruled—that district presidents also
are officers of the Synod. [See the CCM’s Feb. 21, 1975, opinion “Opinion re Removal of District Presidents from Office,”
1975 Convention Workbook, p. 487.] If it should be claimed
that district presidents are not “specified in the Bylaws” as
“officers of the Synod” (Constitution, Art. X A 6) and, therefore, that Article XI A 1 does not apply to them, the question
must be asked: Does the Synod grant more rights to officers
who are not specified in the Constitution and Bylaws than it
grants to those whose positions are specified there?)
Synod President Gerald Kieschnick told the 2009 Missouri
District convention that he sympathizes with the third constitutional
concern listed above, as expressed in a resolution presented to that
convention. (A resolution eventually adopted by the 2009 Missouri
District convention is the model for the present overture.) President
Kieschnick added that he would be willing to bring a suitable overture on this subject to the particular attention of the appropriate Synod
convention floor committee. Grateful for our president’s expression
of concern, and maintaining that the Synod has substantive constitutional reasons to overrule the CCM opinions at issue, the Carrollton
Circuit Forum resolves as follows:
Resolved, That the Carrollton Circuit Forum ask the Synod to
overrule the CCM opinion numbered “02-2296; 02-2320” and the
opinion numbered “02-2309 .”
Carrollton Circuit Forum, Missouri District;
Zion, Moberly, MO

7-15

To Overrule CCM Opinions re Ecclesiastical
Supervision
Whereas, There were 17 overtures that memorialized the Synod’s
2004 convention concerning the CCM opinions regarding ecclesiastical supervision (Opinions 02-2296, 02-2320, 02-2309, 03-2338,
03-2338A, and 03-2338C); and
Whereas, Only one (Overture 8-30) encouraged affirming these
CCM decisions, one (Overture 8-37) recommended review of these
opinions, and the remaining 15 (including overtures from seven districts) asked that these CCM decisions be declared invalid, overruled,
overturned, reversed, etc. (Workbook, pp. 303–9, 312); and
Whereas, The 2004 convention failed to address these overtures,
having never brought them to the floor; and
Whereas, There were 23 overtures that memorialized the Synod’s
2007 convention concerning these same CCM opinions regarding
ecclesiastical supervision (Convention Workbook, pp. 264–271, 276–
279 ); and
Whereas, Only one (Overture 8-46) affirmed these CCM decisions, two requested clarification (both by districts), and twenty
petitioned for their overrule (including seven districts); and
Whereas, The 2007 convention again failed to address these overtures dealing with the CCM opinions on ecclesiastical supervision;
and
Whereas, For over 150 years prior to these opinions, Scripture
served as the authority in church governance in the LCMS; and
Whereas, The CCM ruled that the “Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod do not allow or contemplate the expulsion of a member
of the Synod on the basis of an action taken with the full knowledge
and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor” (Reporter,
March 2003, p. 10) and further expounded this decision in the other
mentioned opinions; and
Whereas, This ruling contradicts Holy Scripture, which repeatedly warns against “respect[ing] persons in judgment” (Deut. 1:17
[KJV]; also Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; James 2:1, 9), “making the word of
God of none effect through [human] tradition” (Mk. 7: 13 [KJV]),
and “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mk 7:7
[KJV]), and insiststhat “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts
5:29 [NIV]); and
Whereas, The CCM’s stance is also incompatible with the
Lutheran Confessions, which teach that “no man has the right to
cancel an obligation which is derived from divine law” (AC XXVII
24, Tappert, p. 74) and deny that texts like Luke 10:16 and Heb. 13:17
grant ecclesiastical supervisors any authority beyond the Gospel itself
(Ap XXVIII 17–21, pp. 283–84); and
Whereas, A confessionally based Synod cannot endure for long
if its members cease to be held responsible for the words and actions
by which they confess the faith; and
Whereas, District and Synod presidents can and may grant their
approval to those under their supervision by way of confidential communications, making it difficult if not impossible for those who elect
them to know about the immunities they have granted; and
Whereas, A Dispute Resolution Panel can and may take into
account extenuating circumstances in which a member of the Synod
has sought the advice of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor in
a difficult case; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2010 convention overrule Opinion 02-2296 and
related opinions of the CCM dealing with ecclesiastical supervision.
Christ
Lampson/Trego, WI;
Circuit 3 Forum, North Wisconsin District

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 216

4/15/10 2:39 PM