LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 306

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

306 ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

8-34
To Address CCM Opinions

02-2296, 02-2309, and 02-2320

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod issued an opinion that
“The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not allow or con-
template the expulsion of a member of the Synod on the basis of an
action taken with the full knowledge and approval of the appropri-
ate ecclesiastical supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320); and

WreREAS, In a related opinion, the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters ruled that “Having promised supervision and coun-
sel, the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the
membership of its member who, when performing his/her official
duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervi-
sor designated by the Synod” (02-2309); and

WHEREAS, That opinion of the CCM continued by stating, “If
an act is in fact contrary to Art. XIII of the Constitution, the mem-
ber who acted cannot be charged since he or she acted according to
the advice of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor” (02-2309); and

Wuereas, If a member of the Synod were to act with the ap-
proval of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor, these CCM opinions,
while they allow for private admonition, may be understood in such
a way that prevents a member of the Synod from being called to ac-
count publicly for his or her act, should that become necessary; and

Wuereas, Each person is accountable for his or her own ac-
tions, so that no individual can be held accountable for the actions
of another person nor can the approval of an ecclesiastical supervi-
sor excuse the action of an individual, as Scripture clearly teaches
in passages such as Deut. 24:16, “Each is to die for his own sin”,
Rom. 14:12, “Each of us will give an account of himself”; Jer.
31:30, “Everyone will die for his own sin”; Ezek. 18:4, “The soul
who sins is the one who will die”; Ezek. 18:18, “[The] father will
die for his own sin”; and

WHEREAS, Although the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod
provide for the discipline and, if necessary, the expulsion of mem-
bers (e.g., Art. XIII), those documents nowhere mention any spe-
cial circumstances or exceptions for conduct that has the approval
of an ecclesiastical supervisor; and

Wrereas, Although the Bylaws of the Synod specify many de-
tails about the powers and duties of the President of the Synod
(3.101), the Presidents of the Districts (4.71), and the Circuit Coun-
selors (5.13), including their work as ecclesiastical supervisors, the
Constitution and Bylaws nowhere state that actions taken with the
approval of an ecclesiastical supervisor are exempt from charges;
and

WHEREAS, These CCM opinions may place an ecclesiastical su-
pervisor into the extremely difficult position of either (a) needing to
know all of the detailed circumstances of a situation (circumstances
that wittingly or, more unwittingly, an individual member of the
Synod may neglect to reveal to his or her supervisor), lest he give
approval to questionable actions; or (b) being hesitant to give his
advice and consent to those under his supervision, lest he unknow-
ingly approve a questionable action, because he could never be sure
if he had all of the necessary information to make a fully informed
decision; therefore be it

Resolved, That whether or not these opinions are in accord with
the Constitution of the Synod, the Southern Illinois District go on
record that these opinions of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters sometimes will lead to practice that is in conflict with the
Word of God; and be it further

Resolved, That the Southern Hlinois District petition the next con-
vention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to consider whether
or not these opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters are
in accord with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod; and

a. if these opinions are in accord with the current Constitution
and Bylaws of the Synod, to make necessary changes in the Con-
stitution and Bylaws, so that individual members are held respon-
sible for their own actions, without regard to whether or not those
actions are approved by an ecclesiastical supervisor; but

b. if these opinions are not in accord with the current Constitu-
tion and Bylaws of the Synod, to overturn the CCM opinion.

Southern Illinois District

8-35

To Revise CCM Decision re Basis
for Expulsion of Member of Synod

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
in response to the question, “May a District President who has
acted in a matter, after having received the advice and authorization
of the Synod President, be charged under Bylaws 2.27 for such act
...” issued its opinion 02-2309; and

WHEREAS, The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, and par-
ticularly Art. XI and XII, and Bylaws 3.101, 4.71, 4.73, nowhere
state that the Synod or District President may grant a synodical
member immunity from Art. XIII and those bylaws pertaining to
ecclesiastical supervision because of having received “the full
knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervi-
sor’; and

WHEREAS, The CCM opinion moves beyond the question asked
by stating that the Synod may not take action “to terminate the
membership of its member who, when performing his/her official
duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervi-
sor designated by the Synod”; and

WHEREAS, The CCM opinion states that even if “‘an act is in fact
contrary to Art. XIII of the Constitution, the member who has acted
cannot be charged since he/she acted according to the advice of his
or her ecclesiastical supervisor”; and

WHEREAS, In stating this opinion the CCM has in fact amended
Art. XIII of the Constitution since Art. XIII makes no such provi-
sion for permitting any member to “‘act contrary to the confession
laid down in Art. II and to the conditions of membership laid down
in Art. VI... (Art. XIII)”—if they have received counsel from their
ecclesiastical supervisor permitting them to do so; and

WHEREAS, Scripture and our Lutheran heritage both speak to
this issue:

Did not the Pharisees act with the permission of their “ec-
clesiastical supervisors” yet Jesus called them a “Brood of
vipers”? (Matt. 12). Did not Saul have the permission of his “ec-
clesiastical supervisors” when he oversaw the stoning of
Stephen and the imprisoning of others yet our risen Savior held
him responsible for his actions (Acts 7, 8, and 22)? Peter was
publicly rebuked by Paul on circumcision (Galatians 2). John
Tetzel had the permission of his “ecclesiastical supervisor” yet
Luther condemned his teaching of Indulgences. The Pope was
the “ecclesiastical supervisor” of all of Christendom yet Luther
called him the antichrist. Our LCMS fathers refused to follow
their “ecclesiastical supervisors” and join the Prussian Union;

therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod assembled in convention declare the
response of the CCM in answer to this question (Opinion 02-2309)
to be invalid and to have no standing in the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod assembled in convention declare that
the provisions for removal of a member from the Synod which are
set down in Art. XIII of the Constitution are to be followed when a
member has in fact acted contrary to the Confession laid down in
Art. IT and the conditions of membership laid down in Art. VI, not
withstanding the counsel or advice received from an ecclesiastical
supervisor; and be it finally

Resolved, That this joint circuit forum of the Pecos and Rio
Grande Circuits of the Rocky Mountain District of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod memorialize the 2004 Synod convention
asking that the opinion of the CCM in this matter be overturned,
and the Constitution and Bylaws affirmed.

Pecos and Rio Grande Circuits; Rocky Mountain District;
Circuit 26 Forum, South Wisconsin District; Wyoming
District