LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 260

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

260

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

and 2000 Guidelines do not suggest what the vote should be, stating:
“Each case shall be presented individually to the voters assembly
for a decision.”
It should be noted that the Guidelines for Constitutions and Bylaws
of Lutheran Congregations are indeed “guidelines” only and should
not be regarded as a “model constitution.” Constitutional polity has
traditionally been considered an adiaphoron by the Synod.
In preparation for its response to the April 9, 2007 communication
referenced above, the commission requested input from the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). The response
of the CTCR follows:
CTCR Response

The CTCR has previously provided “input” regarding this issue in
its 1985 report Church Discipline in the Christian Congregation. In
response to the question “Does excommunication have to be unanimous?” the CTCR says:
Our synodical fathers argued in the affirmative, pointing out that
since such a verdict, reached on the basis of a clear Word of God and
representing God’s own judgment on the sinner, must be accepted by
every Christian and that any who might vote against such action be dealt
with (if necessary, excommunicated themselves) before the matter in
question is resolved. Although ideally all members will see the justice
of what has been resolved (assuming that the congregation has acted
on the basis of the Word of God, and the lack of repentance on the part
of the one being dealt with is evident), we believe that excommunication may be carried out without unanimous vote. Shall the ignorance
and/or weakness of any dissenting member invalidate either the verdict
of the Lord through His church or their own eternal salvation? In all
such instances, of course, those not in agreement should be dealt with
evangelically in the hope of persuading them that the action of the congregation was truly Scriptural. And if it is evident that a congregation
is not sufficiently instructed, with the result that a considerable number
would at the time not be ready to favor excommunication in any case,
the action should be postponed until such instruction can have its good
effect. (p. 22)

The CTCR does not believe that the position taken in the response
quoted above (“that excommunication may be carried out without
unanimous vote”) contradicts the doctrinal position of the Synod.
As Walther himself maintained in defending an unconditional (quia)
subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, complete agreement with
the doctrinal content of the Confessions does not imply or necessitate complete agreement with every line of argumentation or every
exegetical interpretation employed in support of a specific doctrinal
position.1 This principle also applies to doctrinal statements and resolutions adopted by the Synod.
In Church and Ministry Walther sets forth the theological principle that “the minister must not tyrannize the church. He has no
authority to introduce new laws or arbitrarily to establish adiaphora or
ceremonies. He has no right to inflict and carry out excommunication
without his having first informed the whole congregation.”2 Walther
goes on to share his view that, according to Matthew 18:15–18, a
verdict of excommunication is to be pronounced by the pastor “only
when the congregation has unanimously decided to excommunicate”
the unrepentant sinner.3 However, Matthew 18:15–18 does not specifically address the issue of congregational “unanimity” in matters
of excommunication. Despite Walther’s personal views regarding
this matter,
A unanimous ballot does not appear to be a Biblical requirement,
though it may check impetuous action … Unanimity does not seem to
be a Biblical requirement. When evidence of sin and impenitence are
indisputable, the congregation is not bound to that traditional rubric.4

In its report on Church Discipline in the Christian Congregation,
the CTCR also responds to the question, “Is it proper for the congre-

gation to delegate to the elders, to the church council, and/or to the
pastor the authority to excommunicate?” Whether it is wise to do this
may well depend on the circumstances, says the Commission, but “it
is no doubt within the power of the congregation to ask the Board
of Elders and/or pastor to act in its behalf.” (p. 25) The CTCR notes
in this connection that “a kind of delegation has already taken place
when the voters’ assembly, as is generally the case, is authorized to
act in the name of ‘the church.’ ” (p. 25) This principle seems relevant
in view of the pastor’s claim that “Synod’s position under Article II
states that … there must be unanimity not only of the voters but there
must be unanimity of the congregation.” In other words, the position
taken by the pastor (which he claims to be “the Synod’s position
under Article II”) would not give the congregation itself the power
to delegate to others—even to the voters’ assembly—the authority
to carry out excommunication on its behalf.
The CTCR shares this input with the CCM in support of the view
that one can affirm the doctrinal position set forth by Walther in
Thesis IX of Church and Ministry regarding congregational consent
in cases of excommunication without necessarily agreeing with the
view that Matthew 18:15–18 implies or requires a “unanimous” decision on the part of the congregation.
Notes
1. “Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers and Professors Subscribe
Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church,” reprinted in the Concordia Journal (July, 1989: 274–284).
2. Thesis IX “Concerning the Holy Ministry,” Church and Ministry, trans. J. T. Mueller (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1987): 303.
3. Church and Ministry, 322.
4. Pastoral Theology, ed. Norbert H. Mueller and George Kraus
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1990), 183.
Adopted April 4–5, 2008
Calling a Special Convention of the Synod (07-2494)
During floor committee meetings for the 2007 convention of the
Synod, a member of the Synod serving on a floor committee submitted the following question regarding the calling of special conventions
of the Synod.
Question: If the Synod in convention adopts an enabling resolution encouraging the President of the Synod and the
Council of Presidents (Constitution Art. VIII B 2) to call
a special convention of the Synod if all necessary preparations have been completed, can it do so by simple
majority or does it require a two-thirds vote?
Opinion: Article VIII B regarding “Special Sessions of the Synod”
reads as follows:
1.
2.

The Synod may under circumstances call a special session if twothirds of the voting representatives present so decide.
In cases of urgent necessity a special session may be called by the
President with the consent of two-thirds of the district presidents
or by three-fourths of the district presidents without the consent of
the President; however, all congregations and other members of
the Synod must be notified 30 days in advance and told for what
purpose this extra meeting is being convened.

This article provides methods for the calling of a special session
of the Synod. Under the first, the Synod itself—that is to say, the
Synod in convention—may call a special session if two-thirds of the
delegates so decide. In doing so, the convention itself may decide the
circumstances under which such a special session is to be convened.
If the convention were to identify that a special session will be held
at a particular time, subject to certain circumstances having been

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 260

4/15/10 2:40 PM