Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1998 · 60th Convention › Page 308
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 308
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
front matter 6
front matter 7
front matter 8
front matter 9
front matter 10
front matter 11
front matter 12
front matter 13
front matter 14
front matter 15
front matter 16
front matter 17
front matter 18
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Sheet 299
Sheet 300
Sheet 301
Sheet 302
Sheet 303
Sheet 304
Sheet 305
Sheet 306
Sheet 307
Sheet 308
Sheet 309
Sheet 310
Sheet 311
Sheet 312
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Sheet 353
Page 339
Page 340
Sheet 356
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Sheet 361
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
Page 351
Page 352
Page 353
Page 354
Page 355
Page 356
Sheet 372
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 2
Page 368
Sheet 384
Page 370
Page 371
Page 372
Sheet 388
Page 374
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
308
OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Does chapter VIII provide for, or allow, ex parte communica-
tions between the reconciler and a party, except for routine
arrangements? Where all parties do not agree to such a proce-
dure, may a reconciler counsel the parties “individually” in their
efforts toward reconciliation? Is such reconciler’s ex parte coun-
seling of parties contrary to Bylaw 8.21 d, which provides that
neither party shall communicate with the reconciler without the
“full knowledge of the other party to the dispute”?
If the communication simply involves questions of procedure or
of issues regarding “routine arrangements,” such communica-
tion would not be a violation of either the spirit or the letter of
the law. However, any ex parte communication which deals
with the merits of the matter or which involves counse! on them
being provided by the reconciler would constitute a violation of
the Bylaw.
It is our understanding that in an excommunication case the only
matters in which a reconciler may inquire or a dispute resolu-
tion panel may decide are “procedural question involved in ex-
communication cases” Bylaw 8.13 b 1. In such an excommuni-
cation case, may a reconciler direct the respondent church to
document the criteria which in its opinion “justified ... the ac-
tions taken ...” May a respondent church decline to submit such
a document?
The answer to this question is provided in the response to ques-
tion three above.
Is a congregation member excommunicated when a church vot-
ers’ assembly recognizes a member's withdrawal from fellow-
ship and removes his or her name from the congregation’s mem-
bership list as a result of such a member joining another
congregation that is not in doctrinal! fellowship?
This is a theological, not a constitutional, question, which should
therefore be presented to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.
Is a congregation member excommunicated when a church vot-
ers’ assembly recognizes a member’s withdrawal from fellow-
ship and removes his or her name from the congregation’s mem-
bership list as a result of such a member refusing to submit to
brotherly admonition and correction when he has erred?
This is a theological, not a constitutional. question, which should
therefore be presented to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.
Is a congregation member excommunicated when a church vot-
ers’ assembly recognizes a member’s withdrawal from fellow-
ship and removes his or her name from the congregation’s mem-
bership list as a result of such a member failing to attend church
services and partake of the Lord’s Supper?
This is a theological, not a constitutional, question, which should
therefore be presented to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.
. May a congregation of the LCMS be suspended and expelled
from membership in Synod if it declines to participate in chapter
VIII reconciliation procedures, informal and formal, in an ex-
communication case, where it has not indicated that it would not
honor whatever decision a chapter VII dispute resolution panel
made in such case?
The commission understands this question to be asking whether
mere lack of participation in the reconciliation process identi-
fied in chapter VII of the Handbook is grounds for suspension
and removal from the Synod. The assumption is that the con-
gregation has not made a statement as to whether or not it will
abide by the decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel.
In response, the commission states as its opinion that lack of
participation would not be grounds for removal. However, if the
congregation not participating in the process refuses to honor
the final decision made by the Dispute Resolution Panel or other
panels as identified in the Bylaws, it would then be subject to
possible suspension and expulsion.
. May a congregation of the LCMS be suspended and expelled
from membership in Synod if it declines to participate in chapter
VIII reconciliation procedures, informal and formal, in an ex-
communication case, where it has been threatened with civil lit-
igation by dissident former members and where it has not indi-
cated that it would not honor whatever decision a dispute reso-
lution panel made in such case?
The commission understands this question to mean that the con-
gregation has decided not to participate in the reconciliation
process because it is threatened by a lawsuit instituted by the
other party(ies) involved. However, it has not said that it will
not abide by the decision reached by a Dispute Resolution Panel.
With the caveat noted above, i.e., that if the decision is not hon-
ored the congregation is subject to possible suspension and ex-
pulsion, the commission responds that the congregation may not
be suspended or expelled. The commission would also observe
that anyone actually reverting to legal procedures in a matter in
which the process described in chapter VIII could be utilized
might forfeit the right to utilize that process and would be sub-
ject to church discipline. The commission would further note
that if a congregation does not participate or abide by the deci-
sion of a Dispute Resolution Panel, it provides an opportunity
for the other party to utilize the secular courts in resolving is-
sues because the congregation has not followed the process es-
tablished by the Synod for doing so.
. May a congregation of the LCMS be suspended and expelled
from membership in Synod for publicly stating that women’s
suffrage is contrary to Holy Scripture?
The commission’s opinion is that a congregation may be ex-
pelled from membership because the Synod has stated as its po-
sition that woman suffrage is not contrary to the Scriptures. To
teach and state publicly that woman suffrage is contrary to the
Scriptures would be to elevate a matter of human opinion to the
level of Scriptural doctrine—which from the point of view of
the Synod would be contrary to the Scriptures, i.e.. to declare
that what the Synod has included in the category of an open
question is, in fact, a closed question (clearly prohibited by the
Scriptures). The congregation may decline to practice woman
suffrage, but it may not persist in teaching that it is contrary to
the Scriptures. If it were permitted to do so, every congregation
would have the same right to determine which of the positions
of the Synod in similar matters it wishes to accept and which to
reject. In respect to these matters, the following Bylaws are es-
pecially relevant: Bylaw 1.09 b; Bylaw 2.39 b and c, which state
1.09 Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements
b. Doctrinal resolutions may be adopted for the information,
counsel, and guidance of the membership. They shall con-
form to the confessional position of the Synod as set forth in
Art. II of its Constitution and shall ordinarily cite the perti-
nent passages of the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions,
and any previously adopted official doctrinal statements or
resolutions of the Synod. Such resolutions come into being in
the same manner as any other resolutions of a synodical con-
vention and are to be honored and upheld until such time as
the Synod amends or repeals them.
2.39 Relation of the Synod to Its Members
b. The Synod expects every member congregation to respect its
resolutions and to consider them of binding force if they are
in accordance with the Word of God and if they appear ap-
plicable as far as the condition of the congregation is con-
cermed. The Synod, being an advisory body, recognizes the
right of the congregation to be the judge of the applicability
of the resolution to its local condition. However, in exercis-
ing such judgment, a congregation must not act arbitrarily,
but in accordance with the principles of Christian love and
charity.
c. While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of the
Synod are expected as part of the life together within the syn-
odical fellowship to honor and to uphold the resolutions of
the Synod. If such resolutions are of a doctrinal nature, dis-
sent is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers,
then brought to the attention of the Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations before finding expression as an
overture to the convention calling for revision or recision.
While the conscience of the dissenter shall be respected, the
consciences of others, as well as the collective will of the
Synod, shall also be respected.