LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 307

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 307

8-36

To Declare CCM Opinions 02-2296, 02-2309,
and 02-2320 Invalid and to Avoid Conjecture

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
responded to the question “Do the Constitution and/or Bylaws of
Synod allow or contemplate the discipline of any pastor of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod who has taken an action with
the full knowledge and approval of his superior”; and

WHuEREAS, The response of the CCM in its Opinion 02-2296;
02-2320, stated, “The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not
allow or contemplate the expulsion of a member of the Synod on
the basis of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval of
the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. For a thorough treatment
of this issue, see Opinion 02-2309”; and

WHEREAS, The definition of the word contemplate is (1) “To
view or consider with continued attention, to meditate on” and (2)
“To have in view as contingent or probable, or as an end or inten-
tion, to purpose or intend,” and the synonym of the word contem-
plate is “to think studiously, to ponder”; and

WHEREAS, It is not possible for any person or commission to
know what the Constitution or Bylaw might “consider with contin-
ued attention,” “view as contingent,” “purpose or intend,” or “think
studiously or ponder”; and

WuerEAS, The only way to know what a Constitution or Bylaw
allows is to pay attention to the clear and plain meaning of the
words of said Constitution or Bylaw; and

WHEREAS, Creatively discovering the intention of a constitution
or bylaw apart from the plain and accepted meaning of the words
contained in said constitution or bylaw makes it possible to read
any meaning into the constitution or bylaw (e.g., “We must operate
with the spirit of the law, not with the letter of the law”); and

WHEREAS, The reference to a previous opinion of the CCM
(02-2309) indicates that the CCM is basing this opinion on a pre-
vious opinion and not on the clear words of either the Constitution
or Bylaws; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori-
alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare the above opinions (02-
2309; 02-2296; 02-2320) of the CCM to be invalid; and be it fur-
ther

Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori-
alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare that the CCM shall give
its opinions based upon the clear words of the Constitution or By-
laws, not on the conjecture of the intention of the Constitution or
Bylaws; and be it finally

Resolved, That the 2003 Montana District convention memori-
alize the 2004 Synod convention to declare that the CCM shall not
use a previous opinion as the basis for a second opinion.

Montana District

27 66

8-37

To Review CCM Opinion 02-2309 and Role of CCM

WHEREAS, Decisions of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters under Bylaw 3.905 d are “binding on the question decided un-
less and until it is overruled by a synodical convention”; and

WHEREAS, Opinion 02-2309 of the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters has caused concern and has been the subject of much
discussion within the Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Minnesota South District request the Synod
at its 2004 convention to review the CCM opinion and the role of
the CCM in the life and work of the Synod.

Minnesota South District

8-38

To Overrule CCM Opinion 02-2309 ,

WHEREAS, Decisions of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters under Bylaw 3.905 d are “binding on the question decided un-
less and until it is overruled by a synodical convention”; and

WHEREAS, CCM Opinion 02-2309 states that a member of
Synod who has acted contrary to Art. XIII of the Constitution, and
thus is guilty of false doctrine or scandalous life, cannot be charged
with this offense if the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor gave ap-
proval; and

WHEREAS, The CCM is required to limit its opinions to the in-
terpretation of “the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions”
(Bylaw 3.905 d); and

WHEREAS, This opinion of the CCM is not supported by the lan-
guage of any provision in the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions;
and

WHEREAS, This opinion of the CCM undermines Art. II, Art.
III, Art. VI, and Art. XIII of the Constitution, among other provi-
sions of the Constitution and Bylaws; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod at its 2004 convention overrules CCM
Opinion 02-2309.

Circuit 13 Forum

North Wisconsin District

8-39

To Overturn CCM Opinion
re Ecclesiastical Supervision

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM)
has ruled that the “Constitution and Bylaws of Synod do not allow
or contemplate the expulsion of a member of Synod on the basis
of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval of the ap-
propriate ecclesiastical supervisor” (Reporter, March 2003); and

WHEREAS, This ruling flatly contradicts the Scriptures which re-
peatedly warn against “Making the Word of God of none effect
through human traditions” (Mark 7:13), and insists that “We must
obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and

Wuereas, The CCM ruling is incompatible with the Lutheran
Confessions which warn against those who “demand that their tra-
ditions be observed more carefully than the Gospel” (Ap XXVIII
3); therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2004 Synod convention reject, condemn, and
overturn the CCM ruling in question, and declare it null and void
and of no further effect.

Salem
Taylorsville, NC

U

8-40

To Reverse CCM Opinions 02-2296,
02-2320, and 02-2309

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 authoriza-
tion of the Synod President be charged under Bylaw 2.27 for such
act... ?” issued its opinions 02-2296, 02-2320 and 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 a member took action “with the
full knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical su-
pervisor”; and

WHEREAS, CCM Opinion 02-2309 moves beyond the questions
asked by stating that the Synod may not take action “...to terminate
the membership of its member who, when performing his/her offi-