LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 364

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

364 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

He stated: “In some cases, I fear ecclesiastical supervision may
even exceed the boundaries of the Holy Scriptures.”

Thirdly, in a letter received April 7, 2003, a voters’ assembly
of a member congregation of the Synod offered ““An Appeal to the
[Commission] on Constitutional Matters of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod to Declare Invalid Opinions 02-2296;
02-2320; and 02-2309,” expressing concern that these opinions
leave the supervised member or an officer of the Synod free from
responsibility or accountability and thereby change the public na-
ture of the Synod. The congregation stated, “In this way the Synod,
then, can hold no individual under such supervision accountable.”

And finally, input that came as a result of the Commission’s in-
vitation expressed: “One effect of the CCM opinion is to preclude
the Synod from expelling one of its members that engages in of-
fensive conduct (also referred to in the same communication as
‘unacceptable conduct’ and ‘scandalous conduct’)...if that mem-
ber acted with the advice or counsel of the member’s ecclesiastical
supervisor,” and also, “CCM Opinion 02-2309 will certainly be
used as a defense to members of Synod who may be charged with
scandalous behavior.”

Although the above letters were received by the Commission in
March and April, 2003, as indicated, and a draft response was con-
sidered at the Commission's June 23, 2003 meeting, publication of
a response was delayed because of the Commission’s invitation to
the Board of Directors to provide “information, if any, related to
the issues that have been raised” (CCM Minutes, June 23, 2003,
agenda item #161). That information was provided at the Commis-
sion’s meeting August 15-16, 2003, as reflected in those minutes
(Agenda item # 180). Having considered the questions, the com-
munications, and the additional input, the Commission on October
30, 2003 drafted its response to the requests for reconsideration and
the matters presented, and now issues it on this date, December 13,
2003, upon a scheduled conference call.

Opinion: Opinion 02-2309 (cf. Opinions 02-2296 and 02-2320)
concluded that the Synod, having promised evangelical supervision
and counsel to its members, 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 eccle-
siastical supervisor designated by the Synod. In other words, the
opinion addressed the fact that a member of the Synod had the right
to rely on the advice and counsel of his/her ecclesiastical supervisor
in taking official actions without fear of being expelled from the
Synod.

After prayerful consideration and for the following reasons, the
Commission reaffirms its prior opinions 02-2296, 02-2309, and 02-
2320. In reviewing the nature and function of Synod, the Synod,
which is “collectively...an... association of self-governing
Lutheran congregations” (Bylaw 3.51 a)®* expresses. its collective
understanding (and interpretation) of the Scriptures and the
Lutheran Confessions through its doctrinal resolutions and state-
ments in convention (Bylaw 1.09 a)? and also expresses it’s collec-
tive will through its Constitution, Bylaws and other resolutions
(Bylaw 3.01)”.

On the basis of the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws, if the
Constitution and Bylaws or resolutions of the Synod contradict
God’s unchangeable Word or exceed the boundaries of Holy Scrip-
ture, “the only rule and norm of faith and of practice” (Article II), it
is incumbent upon the Synod in convention to amend or repeal
such. And any action or decision of officers, boards or commis-
sions may be appealed to the Synod in convention (Bylaw 3.73).!!

As set forth in Bylaw 3.905 d, the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters is charged with the duty to “interpret the Synod’s
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions.” It does not interpret the
Scriptures. Thus the Synod has limited the Commission in its re-
sponses to the specific provisions of the Constitution; Bylaws and
resolutions of the Synod. The Synod has reserved unto itself the
right to determine whether a decision of the Commission is valid or
in error or if it contradicts the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws.
Bylaw 3.905 d provides that “‘an opinion rendered by the commis-
sion shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is
overruled by a synodical convention.”

2004 Convention Workbook

Further, regarding the issues of evangelical and ecclesiastical
supervision, responsibility, and accountability, the Commission
calls attention to the following: In the formation of our synodical
union, “the Synod, under Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions”
established various objectives including “evangelical supervision,
counsel, and care for pastors, teachers, and other professional
church workers of the Synod in the performance of their official
duties” and “protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and
other church workers in the performance of their official duties and
the maintenance of their rights” (Article III 8 and 9). [Emphasis
added]

Bylaw 3.51 k defines ecclesiastical supervision as follows:
“...ecclesiastical supervision shall be determined exclusively by
those Bylaws pertaining to ecclesiastical supervision.” Among the
bylaws that primarily address this issue are Bylaw 3.101 which re-
lates to the President of the Synod and Bylaws 4.71-4.75 which
relate to District Presidents. Both segments of the Bylaws indicate
that the President of the Synod and a District President have the
duty to “supervise the doctrine” and “see to it that” the Constitution
and Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod are carried out as part of
their respective areas of responsibility (cf. Constitution Article XI b
and Article XII 7 & 8).

Therefore, this Synod-provided ecclesiastical supervision, which is
neither a matter of giving permission nor exercising legislative control
or coercive power (Article VID) but is one of giving advice and coun-
sel, is circumscribed and exercised not by the will of the ecclesiastical
supervisor, not by individual interpretation, and not by public opinion
or by groups within or outside of Synod but by the collective will of
the congregations of the Synod in convention. This also holds true in
administering the supervisory and disciplinary provisions of the By-
laws in carrying out Article XTH of the Constitution. Under the au-
thority of the Synod, the ecclesiastical supervisor does what he has
been authorized and directed to do on behalf of the Synod and is ac-
countable to the Synod in convention.

Thus, Opinion 02-2309 opined that in the forming of the Synod,
one of the objectives and protections of the Synod itself was that
the Synod was to provide for ecclesiastical supervisors, and inher-
ent in such supervision is that those so supervised can reasonably
rely on the counsel and advice in the performance. of their official
duties without having to fear that actions taken in accord therewith
will place their very membership in the Synod at risk. That is not to
say, however, that the advice will always be correct and that there-
fore the member’s action is correct. It is noted in Opinion 02-2309
“that when an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error in his coun-
sel, it is incumbent upon that supervisor to correct or amend it. The
member should then be held to consider the corrected counsel.”
The protections of the Synod as expressed in Opinion 02-2309 are
protections of one’s membership in the Synod and not a protection
from the duty and responsibility to constantly consider the appro-
priateness of one’s actions in view of the Word of God. No one is
immune from responsible, God-pleasing conduct and behavior or
personal accountability before God.

The Commission also calls attention to the language of Opinion
02-2309. Both in the second to last paragraph of the answer to Ques-
tion 1 and in answer to Question 2, the opinion specifically references
official duty and action, not personal offensive conduct. The opinion
notes in Question 1 that “the Synod has promised its individual mem-
bers supervision and counsel when the member is performing his/her
official duties.” The answer to Question 2 concludes that “the Synod
is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of its
member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the ad-
vice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the
Synod” (emphases added). Thus, personal offensive conduct or con-
duct that is illegal or criminal can certainly not be included in the con-
text of the quoted prior opinion.

In addressing accountability of the District President and the Pres-
ident of the Synod, Article XII 7 of the Constitution provides that “‘the
District President shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision
over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained -
and commissioned ministers of their District ....”” Who then exercises
ecclesiastical supervision over a District President? Bylaw 3.101 A 1
provides, “The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision