LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 351

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 351

the doctrinal position of the Synod, or a doctrinal resolution of the
Synod?”

Opinion: Any member of the Synod who does not abide by and
follow in practice the CTCR documents referred to in Resolution 3-
O7A is acting contrary to a study of the CTCR that the Synod has
commended to its members for continued use and guidance. All
doctrinal resolutions and statements are to be honored and upheld
unti] such time as the Synod amends and repeals them.

Question 11 c: “If the answer to the above question is affirma-
tive, must a District President, or the Synodical President suspend a
member who does not teach or practice in agreement with the
above-mentioned CTCR documents, if admonition has been futile
and the member persistently refuses to heed such admonition?”

Opinion: The Commission notes that even the use of A State-
ment of Scriptural and Confessional Principles, adopted by the
1973 convention as a formal doctrinal statement, was to stop short
of such use: “A Statement is not to be used mechanically or legal-
istically to discipline members of the Synod, but it is to be hon-
ored, upheld, and used fraternally and evangelically throughout the
Synod in an effort to assist the Synod in remaining faithful to its
confessional position.”

Oct. 21-22, 2002

Theological Review of Faculty Appointments (02-2305)

A pastor of the Synod, serving as a member of the Board of Re-
gents of a synodical school, asked in a September 17, 2002 letter
for clarification of the review process for candidates for a profes-
sorship of theology.

Question: “Does [the] theological review process conducted by
the District President and selected board members apply also to
candidates for a professor of theology?”

Opinion: The answer is: No. Bylaw 6.23 a states that an initial
appointment to theology faculties requires the prior approval! of the
Board for Higher Education. Through the prior approval process
the Board for Higher Education establishes the standards to be met
by candidates for appointment to theological faculty positions.
Those standards must take into consideration the confessional stan-
dard and the objectives of the Synod as expressed in Articles II and
Hil of the Synod’s Constitution.

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Role of Conscience during Dissent Process (02-2306)

A pastor of the Synod, in a September 17, 2002 letter to the
chairman of the Commission, questioned how the conscience of a
pastor member of the Synod may be respected during the dissent
process regarding a matter that impacts the life of the congregation
he serves.

Question: “While [a member of the Synod] has begun the dis-
sent process withing (sic) the fellowship of peers and is proceeding
according to the guidance of his district president, the question at
hand concerns how he ought to regard the promptings of his con-
science while the dissent is in process. There appear to be only
three alternative courses of action: (1) The dissenter should act con-

trary to his understanding of God’s will for the duration of the dis- .

sent process. (2) The dissenter should be expelled from the Synod
and be denied the dissent process. (3) The dissenter should act ac-
cording to his conscience during the duration of the dissent
process.”

Opinion: Bylaw 2.39 a requires that “the Constitution, Bylaws,
and all other rules and regulations of the Synod apply to all con-
gregational and individual members of the Synod.” Bylaw 2.39 c
requires that if resolutions of the Synod are of a doctrinal nature,
the process of dissent outlined therein is to be followed, during
which time the conscience of the dissenter as well as the con-
sciences of others and the collective will of the Synod shall be re-
spected.

The dissenter, therefore, should not be forced to act contrary to
his conscience so long as it is governed by his understanding of
God’s will. Nor should he be expelled from the Synod and thereby
be denied his right as a member of the Synod to the dissent process.

However, the consciences of others as well as the collective will
of the Synod must also be respected. If his congregation believes
otherwise regarding an issue that impacts congregational life, or if
the collective will of the Synod has been stated by convention ac-
tion to be clearly otherwise, these also are to be respected. The dis-
senter may not under such circumstances act according to his con-
science during the duration of the dissent process. A different
solution must be found, one that respects the conscience of the dis-
senter as well as the consciences of others and the collective will of
the Synod.

Resolution 3-05 of the 1975 convention includes the following
paragraph:

To the person troubled in his conscience, the Synod says: “If a
member cannot for conscience sake accept a doctrinal resolution of the
Synod, he has the obligation and opportunity through mutually ap-
proved procedure to challenge such a resolution with a view of effecting
the changes he deems necessary. Failing in that, he is completely free by
reason of his wholly voluntary association with the Synod to obey his
conscience and disassociate himself from the Synod. Meanwhile every
member of the Synod is held to abide by, act, and teach in accordance
with the Synod’s resolutions” (Milwaukee Resolution 2-21, 1971 Pro-
ceedings, p. 119).

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Use of the Term “Ministry” in Constitutions
of Congregations (02-2307)

A member of a District Committee for Constitutional Matters,
in an e-mail letter dated September 26, 2002, requested clarification
of an issue surfaced by the committee’s review of a congregation’s
constitution. Said congregation has expressed interest in renaming
all of its boards “ministries.” He notes in his letter that this use of
the term “ministry” is not the normal use of the term in the Synod.
The Secretary of the Synod, to whom the letter was addressed, for-
warded the letter to the Commission for a response, as suggested in
the letter.

Question: Should the use of the term “ministry” in place of
more traditional language such as “board” be allowed to stand in a
constitution of a congregation that is a member of the Synod since
it does not match the normal use of the term in our Synod and in
the Book of Concord? Has this situation come up in other parts of
the Synod, and, if so, was this terminology allowed to stand in a
constitution where it might conflict with definitions in the Book of
Concord?

Opinion: Congregations are bound by the processes set forth in
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, as previously discussed in
this Commission’s opinion 99-2157. That opinion identified in par-
ticular four areas of self-government which historically have been rec-
ognized by the Synod: “‘(a) The calling of pastors, teachers, etc., from
a list of those accredited by the Synod itself; (b) The owning and
maintaining of congregational] property without granting any rights
of it to the Synod; (c) Church discipline; and (d) The administration of
a congregation’s programming and financial affairs.”

One area for which a congregation voluntarily gives up its right
of self-government for the sake of continued membership in the
Synod is that of the approval of amendments to its constitution and
bylaws. According to Bylaw 2.03 b, “A member congregation
which revises its constitution and bylaws or adopts a new constitu-
tion or bylaws shall, as a condition to continued eligibility as a
member of the Synod, submit such revised or new constitution
and/or bylaws to the District President, who shal] refer such to the
District’s constitution committee for review to ascertain that the
provisions are in harmony with Holy Scripture, the Confessions,
and the teachings and practices of the Synod.”

It is the responsibility, therefore, of the District’s constitution
committee to work with a congregation that has submitted changes
to its constitution and bylaws to ascertain that the provisions are in
harmony with Holy Scripture, the Confessions, and the teachings
and practices of the Synod.” If the committee is concerned that
such harmony does not exist, it must continue to work with the con-
gregation, using resources at its disposal such as the “GUIDE-
LINES for the Constitution and Bylaws of a Congregation” pub-

2004 Convention Workbook