Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2019 · 67th Convention, Tampa › Page 190

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 190

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

190

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
••

he meet regularly with district presidents “to see
to it that they are in accordance with Article II of
the Constitution, adopted doctrinal statements of
the Synod, and doctrinal resolutions of the Synod”
(Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1 [d]), “to see that their administration
is in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.3.1.2 [b]),

••

he, in general, “see that [they] act in accordance with
Synod’s Constitution [including the provisions for
supervision of doctrine and practice], […] admonish all who in any way depart from it, and, if such
admonitions are not heeded, […] report such cases to
the Synod” (Const. Art. XI B 2)

••

and that he “advise, admonish and reprove” (Const.
Art. XI B 3),

the commission does not find such to exhaust the “means
at his command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and
practice in all the districts of the Synod” (Const. Art. XI B 3).
In view of Synod-wide objectives of “conserv[ing] and
promot[ing] the unity of the true faith,” “provid[ing] a united
defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy,” “provid[ing]
evangelical supervision, counsel and care,” and “protection for
congregations, pastors, and teachers, and other church workers in the performance of their official duties” (Const. Art. III
1, 8, 9), the Constitution has granted the President the supervision of the individual districts of the Synod (Const. Art. XI B 1
c). The Synod is not a confederation of thirty-five synods with
thirty-five sets of objectives, thirty-five standards for doctrine
and practice, or thirty-five standards for when a worker must
be confronted with his or her error, or thirty-five standards of
how, should he or she refuse to repent, upon repeated futile admonition, he or she be expelled from the Synod—not only for
the Synod’s good but as the strongest evangelical admonition
against final impenitence (excepting, of course, excommunication). The Synod has one set of objectives and one standard, the
application of which is ultimately supervised by and—should
the district-level authorities fail to do so—applied by the President of the Synod. This power is inherent in Const. Art. XI
B 1–3. The President of the Synod, who is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of doctrinal and practical unity in the
Synod, must be provided the means, ultimately, to carry out that
responsibility. And, it should be noted, members under district
supervision are well afforded the benefit of another overseer, to
make not singly but doubly sure that they are carrying out their
offices as the Lord of the Church has commanded, under the
reliable norms of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
An historical parallel exists in the very early days of the
Synod, at the division of the Synod into districts. In the 1854
Constitution of the Synod, the President of the Synod “has the
supervision over the doctrine, practice, and the respective administration of all synodical officers, all pastors and teachers
within the entire Synod, over the individual Districts of Synod
as such, over the pastoral conferences, and over the individual
congregations of the District Synods” (1854 Constitution, Chapter VI E 1). “He has the duty to see to it that those who are
named in the preceding paragraph conduct themselves in doctrine, practice, and administration of office in accordance with
the constitution of Synod. In all cases of deviation it is his duty
to admonish. If this is not heeded, it is his duty to report the
2019 Convention Workbook

case in Christian order and according to the proper steps, as
befits the nature of the censured matter or person, to the district
president or District Synod or finally, if need be, to the assembled
Synod” (1854 Const. Ch. VI E 2). While already at this time
only the district president was explicitly empowered to suspend
a member “between conventions of the district” (1854 Const.
Ch. VI A 13), the President of the Synod was able, if the district
president would not initiate action, to bring the matter directly
to the district convention (or ultimately, the Synod convention)
for the case to be acted upon and, if needed, the member expelled.15 Apart from the fact that expulsion is today procedurally impossible apart from prior suspension, the 1854 state of
affairs is actually quite analogous to (in fact, far broader than)
the bylaws called for in Op. 16-2791 and Res. 12-14, and presented in the Secretary’s proposal.16

5. Evangelical Counsel and Care, Previous
Futile Admonition, and the Protection of Rights
of Members
Certainly the exercise of a power of suspension (more precisely, historically speaking, the power to initiate proceedings
leading to an expulsion from the Synod) is not exhaustive of
the responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision. Expulsion from
the Synod requires, constitutionally, “previous futile admonition” (Const. Art. XIII 1). Bylaw procedures (Bylaw sections
2.14–17) carefully delineate face-to-face meetings, consultations, investigations, evangelical counsel and care which would
not be abrogated if the President of the Synod were to exercise
his authority to act on an appeal for action. One of the required
factors in a panel’s sustaining a suspension is that these measures be demonstrated to have been carried out in faithfulness to
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. The President of the
Synod would be held to the same standard as the district presidents, so far as the carrying out of these necessary and evangelical aspects of the process are concerned. Given that, there is no
ground here, either, for denying to the President of the Synod
the authority to carry out this duty, should a district president
fail to.

6. Various Precedential Opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
CCM Ag. 1970 and Op. 03-2338, 03-2338A, 03-2338C, 032354, 10-2581, 13-2669, and 15-2750 are cited in the request for
reconsideration as concluding “that the Synod President does
not have ecclesiastical supervision of an individual member of
the Synod.” The commission responds:
••

Ag. 1970 (October 16, 1993) concludes that “When
the President of a District is properly dealing with a
pastor according to the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod [Emphasis original to Ag. 1970] the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not allow the
congregation, the pastor, or the office of the synodical President to circumvent the office of the District
President and deal directly with that pastor and the
conflicted congregation. The Commission, however,
calls attention to Bylaw 2.27 b which allows for a
complaint to be brought to the Praesidium [the bylaw
procedure between 1989–2004] if there is a call for
suspension of a member and if the district president