LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 276

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

276 SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE

dent’s duty to “call up for review” and to overrule CCM Opinion
02-2282; and

WHEREAS, The Synod in its 2004 convention failed to address
the specific questions and concerns of this overture; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Missouri District in its 2006 convention once
again forward the following overture to the Synod’s 2007 conven-
tion for consideration. ,

Rationale

On August 20, 2002, the Synod’s CCM issued its Opinion
02-2282, “President’s Duty to Call up for Review.” It opined, with
respect to the Synod Bylaw then numbered 2.27 and the Synod’s
dispute resolution process (then contained in Chapter VIII of the
Synod Bylaws), that “a President of the Synod has responsibility
to act” in the event that he were to “become aware, before an-
nouncement of a decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel—that
an investigating officer has misstated a doctrinal position of the
church or acted in violation of the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolu-
tions of the Synod.” The Commission cited Art. XI B 1-4 of the
Synod’s Constitution, adding: “The President’s right and/or re-
sponsibilities of Bylaw 2.27 c flows from his constitutional
responsibilities and powers.” The Synod should consider this opin-
ion of the CCM and the idea it expresses.

A New Idea. The Commission’s interpretation is a new idea.
Supposedly, it is grounded in the Synod’s Constitution, Art. XI B
1-4. Yet past presidents of the Synod serving under the same con-
stitutional provisions have not cited them as rationale, for exam-
ple, to call up for review decisions of district presidents resulting in
members of the Synod being suspended. Past presidents of the
Synod and others realized that this sort of action would not be ap-
propriate.

A Premature Idea. Any knowledge of such a case that the Pres-
ident might gain at a premature point could turn out to be incom-
plete and even misleading. Therefore the Synod has specified the
time for its President to carry out his duties with respect to matters
in dispute resolution: after decisions are finalized. If a question of
doctrine or practice is involved, Bylaw 1.10.8. (not unlike the for-
mer Bylaw 8.09 d) provides that the President may appeal the
decision. The same Bylaw also authorizes the President to request
an opinion of the CTCR (if he fears that theology went awry as
the case was handled) or an opinion of the CCM (if he thinks that
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod were misread).

A Confusing Idea, The language “call up for review” is not
found in the Synod’s Constitution, which the CCM cites. Rather it
comes from Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c), which is former Bylaw 3.101 B 5,
adopted by the Synod in 1998 upon recommendation from the Blue
Ribbon Committee on Structure. For clarity’s sake, that committee
had restated this entire Bylaw, dividing the President’s powers and
duties into three clusters: those that are ecclesiastical in nature,
those that are administrative in nature, and those that are both
ecclesiastical and administrative. Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c), which provides
that the President shall “call up for review any action by an indi-
vidual officer, executive, or agency which, in his view, may
be in violation of the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of
the Synod,” falls under his “administrative” duties. Thus in 1998
the Synod did not apply the President’s “call up for review” power
to ecclesiastical matters such as decisions in pending dispute reso-
lution cases. For the CCM to apply this language to these very mat-
ters is to overlook distinctions the Synod itself has made. Confu-
sion results where the Synod had striven for clarity.

A Changed Idea. Before the Blue Ribbon Committee’s restated
Bylaw on presidential powers and duties was adopted by the Synod
in 1998, the CCM approved its constitutionality. But only four
years later, in its August 20, 2002, opinion, the Commission set
forth a new reading of the Constitution under which this Bylaw
could not have been approved for adoption. For the Bylaw to fall
into line with the Commission’s changed reading of the Constitu-
tion, its “calling up for review” point would at minimum have to be
reclassified as both ecclesiastical and administrative. The constitu-
tion has not changed in this respect since 1998, nor has the Bylaw
in question (although the Bylaw was renumbered in 2004), yet the

Commission has changed its opinion. This changed opinion stands
in need of correction by the Synod.

Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod reaffirms its intention, expressed in
current Bylaw 3.3.1.2 (c), to situate the Synod President’s authority
to “call up for review” within the administrative sphere of his pow-
ers and duties, not in the ecclesiastical sphere, and therefore the
President’s constitutional powers do not include calling up for re-
view the decisions of investigating officers before the decisions of
the appropriate Dispute Resolution Panels have been announced;
and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention overrule Opinion 02-2282
of the CCM.

Missouri District; Minnesota South District; Zion,
Moberly, MO; Western Regional Pastors’ Conference,
Missouri District

8-46

To Affirm CCM Opinions 02-2296 and 02-2309

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Confessions state: “According to di-
vine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the
Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine, and condemn doctrine that is
contrary to the Gospel...All this is to be done not by human power
but by God’s Word alone. On this account, parish ministers and
churches are bound to be obedient to the bishops according to
Christ, as recorded in Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears Me.”
(AC, Art. XXVIID; and

WHEREAS, The Synod’s objectives include: “The Synod, under
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, shall-1. Conserve and pro-
mote the unity of the true faith...8. Provide evangelical supervi-
sion, counsel, and care for pastors, teachers, and other professional
church workers of the Synod in the performance of their official
duties...9. Provide protection for congregations, pastors, teachers,
and other church workers in the performance of their official du-
ties and the maintenance of their rights” (Art. III); and

WHEREAS, Art. XI B | specifically identifies the President as
the ecclesiastical supervisor of all officers of the Synod, all such
as are employed by the Synod, the individual districts of the Synod,
and all district presidents. Art. XII 7 specifically requires that dis-
trict presidents “especially exercise supervision over the doctrine,
life, and administration of the office of the ordained and commis-
sioned ministers of their district and acquaint themselves with the
religious conditions of the congregations of their district”; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 3.3.1.1 summarizes the ecclesiastical powers
and duties of the President of the Synod when it states that the Pres-
ident shall “supervise the doctrine taught and practiced in the
Synod, including all synodwide corporate entities. In the districts of
the Synod, he shall carry out his ecclesiastical duties through the
district’s president. The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical
supervision of all officers of the Synod and its agencies, the indi-
vidual districts of the Synod, and all district presidents.” Bylaw
2.12.1 states: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, a mem-
ber shal] be under the ecclesiastical supervision of the president of
the district through which membership in the Synod is held”; and

WuerEAS, Ecclesiastical supervision intrinsically includes all
of the following: “supervision regarding the doctrine and the ad-
ministration” of all officers, employees, districts, and district pres-
idents (Art. XI B 1); “to admonish all who in any way depart from
[the Synod’s Constitution], and, if such admonition is not heeded,
to report such cases to the Synod” (Art. XI B 2); “power to advise,
admonish, and reprove” (Art. XI B 3); to ‘‘see to it that the resolu-
tions of the Synod are carried out” (Art. XI B 4); “supervision over
the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained and
commissioned ministers...visit and, according as they deem it nec-
essary, hold investigations” (Art. XII 7); “supervise the doctrine
taught and practiced in the Synod” ... (Bylaw 3.3.1.1); “officially
Visit or cause to be visited all the educational institutions of the
Synod”... (Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1[b]; “meet regularly with the Council
of Presidents...to see to it that they are in accordance with Article