LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNODICAL REPORTS 7

pute resolution. I commend to you the recommendations of this
task force, which will come before the convention for approval.

Biblical and Confessional Study of Matters
That Divide the Synod

Through it all, it has been apparent to me, and to many others,
that continued and renewed theological conversation and biblical
study are necessary to restore the synodical solidarity we all so
deeply desire. As a result of my request that the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations, in consultation with the Council of
Presidents, plan and conduct theological convocations to study and
discuss the position of Holy Scripture on matters of theological dis-
agreement in our Synod, all 35 Districts of the Synod have con-
ducted “theological convocations” during the past two years. Gen-
erally, these have been two-day meetings of pastors and, in some
cases, also educators and laity. Such conversation and study require
expenditure of significant resources of time, energy, and money.

The joint committee of the CTCR and COP that planned and
conducted the first model convocation in Aug. 2002, in Phoenix
(it’s a dry heat . . .), will soon begin planning a second round of
convocations to be held in the coming triennium. I sincerely invite
you to join me in prayer for the blessing of the Holy Spirit on these
very important meetings.

By the grace and power of Almighty God I pray that we in the
LCMS will be able to re-establish the synodical solidarity, har-
mony, concord, and trust we all so sincerely desire and seek.

The Board of Directors and Commission
on Constitutional Matters

During this triennium, the LCMS Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters (CCM) has rendered a number of official interpreta-
tions (“opinions”), eight of which have been specifically and for-
mally questioned by the Board of Directors (BOD), which declared
these opinions “of no effect.” Some of these opinions have to do
with ecclesiastical supervision and some have to do with the au-
thority of the BOD in relation to program boards and the President
of the Synod.

As stated on a number of occasions, I understand the concerns
of the BOD for protecting the assets of the Synod and protecting
the Synod from litigation, liability, and vulnerability. I have also,
on a number of occasions, indicated my concern with the adoption
by the BOD of resolutions that appear to be in conflict with the
Constitution and Bylaws of our Synod, specifically the following
provisions:

LCMS Constitution
Article X Officers

A. The officers of the Synod are:

1. A President;

2. Vice-Presidents, in line of succession, as prescribed by the
Bylaws;

3. A Secretary;

4.A Vice-President~Finance—Treasurer not in line of
succession;

5. A Board of Directors;

6. Other officers, as specified in the Bylaws.

Article XI Rights and Duties of Officers

A. In General

1. The officers of the Synod must assume only such rights as have
been expressly conferred upon them by the Synod...

2. The Synod at all times has the right to call its officers to
account and, if circumstances require it, to remove them from
office in accordance with Christian procedure.

B. Duties of the President

1. The President has the supervision regarding the doctrine and
the administration of

a. All officers of the Synod;

b. All such as are employed by the Synod;

c. The individual Districts of the Synod;

d. All District Presidents.

2. It is the President’s duty to see to it that all the aforementioned
act in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish
all who in any way depart from it, and, if such admonition is
not heeded, to report such cases to the Synod.

Bylaw 3.183 (Authority of the Board of Directors)

The Board of Directors shall

a. have the powers and duties which have been accorded to it by
the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod, and the laws of the State of Missouri.

d. To the extent of its responsibilities relative to the general
management and supervision of the business and legal affairs
of the Synod:

2. It [the Board of Directors] shall have the right to call up for
review, criticism, modification, or revocation any action or
policy of a program board, commission, or council, except
opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters.

Bylaw 3.905 d (Functions of the Commission on Constitutional

Matters)

The commission shall

d. interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
upon the written request of a member (congregation, ordained
or commissioned minister), official, board, commission, entity,
or agency of the Synod. Such a request may be accompanied
by a request for an appearance before the commission. An
opinion rendered by the commission shall be binding on the
question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical
convention...

The BOD, while not unanimous on these issues, has expressed
its disagreement with and concerns about the referenced CCM
opinions. The Board must take into consideration the laws of the
State of Missouri when taking action to protect the Synod. Since
CCM opinions do not (and should not) interpret civil law, the
Board believes the referenced CCM opinions attempt to govern
Board actions and decisions in a way not allowed by Missouri law,
as interpreted by two legal opinions obtained by the Board from
independent legal counsel. Another legal opinion requested by “a
group of individuals . . . who love and support the Synod” (quote
taken from that legal opinion) arrives at conclusions different from
those obtained by the Board. The Board also believes the CCM, in
drawing conclusions concerning the propriety of resolutions and
actions of the BOD, has exceeded its function of interpreting the
Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions.

With these concerns, legal opinions, and constitutional and Bylaw
provisions clearly in mind, I have been and still am, as of the date of
submission of this report, attempting to work patiently, pastorally, and
evangelically to resolve this difficult matter. At a Feb. 7, 2004, joint
meeting of the Council of Presidents and the Board of Directors, I re-
quested a private conversation with the chairman of the BOD and the
chairman of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, who was in
the meeting at that time. Following our brief time together the two
chairmen issued the following joint statement:

“The chairman of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
(CCM) attended the second day of the meeting, during which discus-
sion took place regarding decisions of the CCM which the Board of Di-
rectors (BOD) believes to be contrary to the laws of the State of Mis-
souri. The BOD will review its recent actions which declared such
opinions of no effect. The CCM will again revisit those opinions ques-
tioned by the BOD, taking into consideration the material presented at
the meeting by the BOD as well as any actions coming from the next
meeting of the BOD.”

(Signed)

Robert T. Kuhn and Walter F. Tesch
It is my fervent hope and prayer that this matter can be prop-

erly resolved, in accordance with the provisions of our Synod’s
Constitution, Bylaws, resolutions, Articles of Incorporation, and
the laws of the State of Missouri. In Part III of my report to the

2004 Convention Workbook