LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 275

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE 275

sent be given careful consideration in an effort to achieve objec-
tives | and 6 as found in Article III of the Constitution”; and

WHEREAS, The CCM further stated in its opinion: “The fact that
one who dissents from the position of the Synod does not prevail,
i.e., that the position of neither the dissenter or the Synod has
changed, does not mean that the dissenter is free to teach the dis-
senting view. Bylaws 1.09 (b), and 2.39 (b) and (c), are quite clear
on this matter”; and

WHEREAS, The CCM opinion concludes that the dissenter may
not teach the dissenting position publicly and assert that the posi-
tion of the Synod is contrary to Scripture. To permit this would
mean that every member of the Synod would have the right to de-
termine which of the positions of the Synod it wished to accept and
which to reject; and

WHEREAS, This opinion of the CCM is in agreement with a res-
olution adopted by the Synod, 1971 Resolution 2-21 (pp. 117-19,
1971 Proceedings); therefore be it

Resolved, That the Montana District in convention memorial-
ize the 2007 LCMS convention to adopt this opinion (Ag. 2048).

Montana District

8-42

To Adopt the CCM Opinion Ag. 2085 re Those Who
Teach Contrary to Positions of Synod

WHEREAS, The CCM was asked to provide an opinion in re-
sponse to these questions: “May a congregation of the LCMS be
suspended from membership in the Synod for publicly stating that
women should be included in the pastoral office?” “May a member
of a Missouri Synod congregation continue as a teacher at one of
the schools in the Concordia University System who publicly states
that women should be included in the pastoral office?”; and

WHEREAS, The CCM issued the following opinion (Ag. 2085)
in 1997: “For a congregation to teach publicly and persistently
contrary to this position would subject that congregation to the
possibility of suspension from membership in the Synod”; and

Wuereas, The CCM also stated in its opinion that schools of the
Synod are required to uphold and honor the resolutions of the Synod.
“To permit a teacher, whether or not a member of a Missouri Synod
congregation, to publicly and persistently teach in such a school that
women should be included in the pastoral office would not be consis-
tent with honoring and upholding resolutions of the Synod”; and

WHEREAS, The opinion of the CCM also states, “It would be the
responsibility of the administration of the school and/or its board of
regents to deal with the issue under the provisions of Bylaw 6.45
and 6.47”; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention adopt the opinion (Ag.
2085) of the CCM; and be it further

Resolved, That if patient and persistent admonition of those who
advocate such a position contrary to that of the Synod does not re-
sult in persuading them to cease, that such members of the Synod
be suspended from membership in the Synod in accordance with
the above opinion of the CCM; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Montana District in convention memorial-
ize the 2007 LCMS convention to adopt this resolution.

Montana District

8-43

To Overturn CCM Opinions re Use of Brief Statement

WHEREAS, In an Oct. 26-28, 1966, opinion, the CCM opined
“that congregations are not permitted to include subscription to the
Brief Statement in an obligatory article of their constitution”; and

WHEREAS, In a March 7-8, 1968, opinion the CCM stated: “The
Commission on Constitutional Matters holds that Article VI, 1
‘Conditions of Membership’ of the Synod’s Constitution requires
nothing more and nothing less than the acceptance of the confes-
sional basis of Article II,” also stating in reference to the 1966 opin-

ion, “The Commission holds the same opinion in regard to any
other doctrinal statement not listed in Article IT of the Synod’s Con-
stitution”; and

WHEREAS, The Synod itself adopted the Brief Statement in
1931, with the understanding that nothing in it contradicts the Con-
fessional standard of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, The CCM itself noted in its 2003 opinion (03-2352)
“doctrinal resolutions and statements” adopted by the Synod in
convention “are not to be regarded as additions to the confessional
basis for membership provided in Art. II”; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention declare that the Oct.
26-28, 1966, and March 7-8, 1968, CCM opinions barring con-
gregations from including the Brief Statement “in an obligatory ar-
ticle of their constitution” is null and void, since the Brief State-
ment is in accord with the Synod’s confessional basis of Art. II of
the Synod Constitution.

Zion
East Moline, IL

8-44

To Request CCM Reconsideration of Opinion 99-2157
re Art. VII

WHEREAS, There has been an acceptable and healthy tension in
the relationship between its member congregations and The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod from its founding in 1847 re-
garding the self-governance of the individual congregation over
against its obligations to incorporate into its life every particular of
the official statements issued by the Synod in convention assem-
bled and in determining just how those particulars apply in the spe-
cific local situation; and

Wuereas, Art. VII of our Synod’s Constitution clearly and
wisely embraces this tension when it states: “In its relation to its
members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising
legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual con-
gregation’s right of self-government it is but an advisory body”; and

WHEREAS, That same Art. VII draws out the logical dual conse-
quence of that statement when it continues: “Accordingly, no reso-
lution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual congre-
gation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the Word of
God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condition of a
congregation is concerned”; and

WHEREAS, Opinion 99-2157 of the CCM, namely, “In answer to
the question to the Commission, the phrase ‘inexpedient as far as the
condition of a congregation is concerned,’ does not refer to the Con-
stitution and Bylaws of the Synod and is restricted to resolutions
adopted by a convention of the Synod which are non-doctrinal in na-
ture,” exceeds the intent of the Constitution as it limits the second of
the dual consequences mentioned above to what is not doctrinal; and

Wuereas, Ruling 99-2157 of the CCM binds all congregations
until and unless it is overruled by a convention of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b]); therefore be it

Resolved, That we affirm and honor the healthy tension that Con-
stitution Art. VII sets forth as a fact of our walking together as we
share fraternally in our God-given tasks while resolving agreeably the
complex issues that inevitably arise from our LCMS tradition and
constitutionally stated position embracing both congregational self-
governance and our very real responsibilities to one another in matters
involving our synodical policy; and be it further

Resolved, That the 2006 convention of the Northern Illinois
District ask the CCM to reconsider its ruling in Opinion 99-2157.

Northern Illinois District; Trinity, Roselle, IL

8-45
To Overrule CCM Opinion 02-2282

re “Call Up for Review”

Whereas, The Missouri District in its 2003 convention memo-
rialized the Synod’s 2004 convention to specify the Synod Presi-