LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 306

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

306 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

contracted, or otherwise employed by a congregation is solely
under the authority and supervision of the congregation and is not
subject to any supervision or protection by the Synod. Supervision
by the congregation is provided according to its own constitution
and bylaws in a manner that is in harmony with Holy Scripture, the
Confessions, and the teachings and practices of the Synod. Al-
though matters described in Article XIII of the Synod’s Constitu-
tion may be at issue, it is the congregation that is responsible. The
Synod cannot remove or assure the removal of a non-rostered
worker from a congregation, whether for the provisions set forth in
Article XIII of the Synod’s Constitution or for any provisions set
forth in a constitution and bylaws of a congregation.

What, then, is the role of the district president under these cir-
cumstances? While the district has no direct power or responsibil-
ity to deal with the employment status of a non-rostered employee
of a congregation, the district president does have the responsibility
as ecclesiastical supervisor of the member congregation to make
certain that said congregation acts in a manner that is consistent
with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod and, if
such is not the case, to take such action as may be required.

Adopted March 17, 2005

Implementation of Dispute Resolution Panel
Decision by a Congregation (05-2417)

In a January 11, 2004 letter, a member congregation of the
Synod which has been involved in a dispute resolution process sub-
mitted a series of questions related to the congregation’s responsi-
bilities as regards the decisions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and
the congregation’s response to the panel’s decisions. The congrega-
tion continues to disagree with the decision of the Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel and has chosen not to implement the panel’s decision.
The congregation asks generally if its decision not to implement
the panel’s recommendations is a violation of its membership in
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, specifically asking the
Commission to address the following questions.

Question 1: Why can [a congregation] not interpret [Bylaw] 8.11
(now Bylaw 1.10.9) to mean that she has a right to
self-governance and that the action of a Dispute Reso-
lution Panel is to “advise,” not issue a “binding deci-
sion”?

Opinion: The covenants which bind the members of the Synod in

their “walking together” are not subject to revision or reinterpreta-

tion by individual members. Bylaw 1.3.4 (2004 Handbook, pp.

24-25) provides, in part:

... Thus, while congregations of the Synod are self-governing (Art.

VII), they, and also individual members, commit themselves as mem-

bers of the Synod to act in accordance with the Constitution and By-

laws of the Synod under which they have agreed to live and work to-
gether and which the congregations alone have the authority to adopt
or amend through conventions.

Membership in the Synod is voluntary. While the Synod can-
not legislate or control the congregation’s internal governance, it
has been given the authority by the congregations of the Synod to
review the actions of a congregation in light of the Holy Scriptures,
and may call upon a congregation to review and revise its actions if
found in violation of that standard. While the Synod recognizes that
it may not force compliance, it has retained the right to take action
with respect to a congregation that fails to accept a Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel decision as the Synod deems appropriate.

Question 2: Where does Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9) state that
a decision not to implement Dispute Resolution Panel
recommendations means that a congregation violates
her voluntary association with the Synod?

Opinion: The conditions of membership are provided in Article VI
of the Constitution, and the relationship of the Synod to member
congregations is described in paragraph 1 of Article VII as follows:
In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical gov-
emment exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to
the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but an advi-
sory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything
upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is not in ac-

2007 Convention Workbook

cordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far
as the condition of a congregation is concerned.

This relationship is further reflected in the bylaw to which refer-
ence is made, now renumbered as Bylaw 1.10.9 in the 2004 Handa-
book (p. 43):

The congregation’s right of self-government shall be recognized.
However, when a decision of a congregation is at issue, a Dispute Res-
olution Panel may review the decision of the congregation according to
the Holy Scriptures and shall either uphold the action of the congrega-
tion or advise the congregation to review and revise its decision. If the
congregation does not revise its decision, the other congregations of the
Synod shall not be required to respect this decision, and the district in-
volved shall take action with respect to the congregation as it may deem
appropriate.

Bylaw 1.10.7.4 (d) (2004 Handbook, p. 42) states: “Subject to
request for review or appeal (contemplated or pending), the final
decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel shall (1) be binding upon
the parties to that dispute;...” While a congregation retains its right
of self-governance, its rejection of a Dispute Resolution Panel deci-
sion violates the covenants reflected in the dispute resolution
process itself. Whether that action of the congregation warrants fur-
ther action by the Synod is left to the discretion of the district as
reflected in Bylaw 1.10.9.

Question 3: If Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9) does not allow con-
gregations to disagree with the recommendations of a
Dispute Resolution Panel without threat to such con-
gregations’ membership in the Synod, what is the
meaning and purpose of Bylaw 8.11?

Opinion: Bylaw 1.10.9 reaffirms the independence of the individual
congregation. The Synod in its 2001 convention made that inde-
pendence even more clear by adding to Article VII of the Constitu-
tion a second provision: “2. Membership of a congregation in the
Synod gives the Synod no equity in the property of the congrega-
tion.” Should a congregation determine that it wishes to terminate
its voluntary association with the Synod, or should the Synod,
through appropriate process, determine that the congregation no
longer meets the qualifications for membership, the congregation’s
independence and property rights are retained, even though the re-
lationship is severed. The language of Bylaw 1.10.9 reflects the
range of disagreements which can develop despite our attempts to
walk together, and gives discretion to the districts to evaluate a con-
gregation’s actions in rejecting a Dispute Resolution Panel deci-
sion, and to consider whether such rejection justifies action to ad-
dress and heal the breach, up to and including an action to
terminate membership.

This issue is not new to this Commission’s consideration. For
example, in a 1993 opinion involving questions arising out of an
action for excommunication, the Commission previously wrote
(Ag. 1972):

...4t should be noted that while the congregation is autonomous, by
its membership in the Synod it has covenanted with others in regard to
doctrine and practice. It is pledged by its membership in the Synod to
honor and uphold the doctrinal position and the resolutions of the
Synod. It is for this reason that Bylaw 8.11 states that the “...Dispute
Resolution Panel may review the decision of the congregation according
to the Holy Scripture and shall either uphold the action of the congrega-
tion or advise the congregation to review and revise its decision.” In
other words, if it determines that the basis for the action, was contrary to
Holy Scripture, it may advise the congregation to take action as indi-
cated. Because it is autonomous, the congregation need not do so. How-
ever, if it does not, the remainder of the bylaw applies as it states, “If the
congregation does not revise its decision, the other congregations of the
Synod shall not be required to respect this decision, and the district in-
volved shall take action with respect to the congregation as it may deem
appropriate.”

This issue was also addressed in a 1994 opinion inquiring as to
a congregation’s right to discharge a pastor. The Commission
opined in Ag. 1980:

Congregational autonomy does include the authority of a congrega-
tion to dismiss its pastor for any reason. However, as noted previously,
if it wishes to remain a member of the Synod, that autonomy is limited.
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations has spoken to this
matter in response to a question addressed to it prior to the 1992 synod-