LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 257

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

8. SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE

8-01

To Reaffirm 2004 Res. 7-02A

WHEREAS, The 2004 Synod convention approved Res. 7-02A in
order to make minor adjustments to the Synod’s governing docu-
ments in regard to its structure and governance, for as the resolution
stated, “The Board of Directors and the Synod’s legal counsel rec-
ognize that the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution, and Bylaws
of the Synod require amendments to clarify the roles of the offi-
cers, including the Board of Directors, and other boards and to re-
flect other changes since they were last amended in 1998”; and

WHEREAS, Our Lord instructs His Church, “The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over
them are called benefactors. But not so with you” and in like man-
ner the Apostles gave this instruction, “All of you be subject to one
another”; and

Wheres, Luther, in regard to the authority within the Church,
made these remarks: “There certainly must be authority even
among Christians.” Answer: Among Christians, there shall and can
be no authority; rather, all are alike subject to one another, as Paul
says in Rom. 12: “Each shail consider the other his superior”; and
Peter says in 1 Peter 5:5, “All of you be subject to one another.”
This is also what Christ means in Luke 14:10, “When you are in-
vited to a wedding, go and sit in the lowest place.” Among Chris-
tians, there is no superior but Christ Himself, and Him alone. What
kind of authority can there be where all are equal and have the
same right, power, possession, and honor, and where no one de-
sires to be the other’s superior, but each the other’s subordinate?
Where there are such people, one could not establish authority even
if he wanted to, since in the nature of things it is impossible to have
superiors where no one is able or willing to be a superior. Where
there are no such people, however, there are no real Christians ei-
ther (“Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed,”
1523); and

WHEREAS, In regard to the separation of Church and State,
Walther pointed out in his thesis (Section 2) of “The Proper Form
of an Evangelical Lutheran Congregation Independent of the State”
that “a congregation is independent of the State when the State
leaves it to such congregation in all things to govern itself. The
separation of Church and State is not an irregularity but the nor-
mal, sound condition. For civil government deals with other things
than does the Gospel. Therefore, the power of the Church and the
civil power must not be confounded” (AC XXVIII). “My kingdom
is not of this world,” (John 18:36; see also Matt. 22:21; John 18:37;
Luke 12:13-14; 2 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 13:1ff). According to Luther:
“When the princes take it upon themselves to rule the Church, they
must look for God’s blessing, and the last will be worse than the
first. Let them concern themselves about their court and leave the
Church to those who are called to that work and must give account
to God for it...Under the Papacy, Satan mixed the Church into a
secular government; in our days he wants to mix the secular gov-
ernment into the Church”; and

WHEREAS, The 1932 LCMS convention adopted “A Brief State-
ment,” and the section on “Of Church and State” says: ‘“Accord-
ingly, we condemn the policy of those who would have the power
of the State employed ‘in the interest of the Church’ and who thus
turn the Church into a secular dominion”; and

WHEREAS, An attorney wrote to the Synod in March 2004: “We
have tried to show that the attempt by some within the Synod to
hand over to the Missouri legislature the ability to define the gov-
ermance of the Synod is not only contrary to the religious beliefs
important to the Synod, it is neither required by the Missouri non-
profit code nor permitted by either the Missouri Religious Freedom
Restoration Act or the First Amendment Doctrine of Church Au-
tonomy”; and

WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, “It is of
the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish
tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves,
that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical
cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself pro-
vides for” Watson v. Jones (1871), and “The opinion (Watson v.
Jones) radiates, however, a spirit of freedom for religious organi-

zations, an independence from secular control or manipulation—
in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interfer-
ence, matters of church government as well as those of faith and
doctrine” (Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 1952); and, “Hierar-
chical churches may be defined as those organized as a body with
other churches having similar faith and doctrine with a common
ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head” (Kedroff v. St. Nicholas
Cathedral, 1952). (Note: In the realm of legal terminology, the
word “hierarchical” differs from LCMS doctrinal terminology and
understanding.) “In short, the First and 14th Amendments permit
hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and
regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create
tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this
choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to de-
cide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate
bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their deci-
sions as binding upon them” (Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivo-
jevich, 1976); and

WHEREAS, Missouri non-profit Chapter 355 laws are considered
“valid laws of general application” and both the federal (1993) and
state of Missouri (2003) “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”
State:

1. A governmental authority may not restrict a “‘person’s” free ex-

ercise of religion, unless:

(1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicabil-
ity, and does not discriminate against religion, or among re-
ligions; and

(2) The governmental authority demonstrates that application of
the restriction to the person is essential to further a com-
pelling governmental interest, and is not unduly restrictive
considering the relevant circumstances (see MO statutes
[Section 1.302]).

(Note: 1.020. [11] The word “person” may extend and be applied
to bodies politic and corporate, and 10 partnerships and other unincor-
porated associations);

and

WHEREAS, State of Missouri non-profit laws allow for such
changes to be made according to the following Chapter 355 Sec-
tions:

316. 2. Except as provided in this chapter, al] authority of the corpora-

tion...”; 096. 3. The articles of incorporation may set forth: (3) Provi-

sions not inconsistent with law regarding: (b) Defining, limiting. and
regulating the powers of the corporation, its board of directors

regulatin » and
members, or any class of members...”; 131. (3) To make and amend
bylaws not inconsistent with its articles of mcorporation or with the
laws of this state, for regulating and managing the affairs of the corpo-
ration; 355.226. 1. A corporation may provide in its articles or bylaws
for delegates having some or all of the authority of members. 2. The ar-
ticles or bylaws may set forth provisions relating to: (3) Carrying on
corporate activities during and between meetings of delegates;
and

WHEREAS, The approval of 2004 Res. 7-02A was one of the rea-
sons for a lawsuit against the Synod and also for a ‘Motion to In-
tervene” on the part of certain members of the Synod’s Board of
Directors in which their action was not granted nor sanctioned by
the entire board, against Board Policy Manual procedures (see
5.8.2.1.1) and against the Bylaws of the Synod (1.10); and

WHEREAS, The settlement of the lawsuit (Anderson et. al) calls
for a reconsideration of the issues of Res 7-02A at the 2007 Synod
convention, and the validity of the settlement is highly question-
able since certain members of the Synod’s Board of Directors may
have had “conflicts of interests” and, thus, did not recuse them-
selves from the actual proposal, discussion, and/or approval of such
settlement; and

WHEREAS, The Synod was in complete compliance with the
laws of the state of Missouri and autonomy allowed a church under
the U.S. Constitution in taking such action in Res 7-02A, and the
convention of the Synod is the ultimate authority of the corpora-
tion, LCMS, Inc., (see Art. IV, Articles of Incorporation); there-
fore be it

Resolved, That the 2007 Synod convention reaffirms conven-
tion Res. 7-02A; and be it further

257