LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 309

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 309

of the convention resolution (2004 Handbook, pp. 65 and 68) and
confessional writings, he asked the following questions.

Question 1: “If the matter is ‘public’ as set forth in our Confes-
sions, may we testify publicly concerning [the ac-
cused] without question of slander, injustice, or false
witness?”

Opinion: The question as asked does not request an opinion regard-
ing the right or duty of members of the Synod to respond publicly
to public sin. Concerns regarding when and how a member can or
should respond to perceived public sin should be addressed to the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

The question posed assumes that the person who wishes to
speak out has become an accuser under Bylaw section 2.14. Should
a member of the Synod choose to initiate the Bylaw section 2.14
process, that person must abide by the provisions of that process,
including the prohibition of publicity under Bylaw 2.14.7.7.(g). In
an earlier opinion (01-2243), the Commission offered definition of
such publicity:

The word “publicity” as used in the bylaw is defined in Webster’s

New World Dictionary as “any information or action that brings a per-

son, Cause, etc. to public notice.” Use of the press or other means by a

party involved in the matter to bring to the attention of the public in-

formation regarding the matter or to advocate a position is “publicity”
and is prohibited by the bylaw if it occurs while a matter in dispute is
still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending.

Members of the Synod walk together according to the
covenants that they have mutually agreed upon by such member-
ship, as delineated in the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolu-
tions. One of those covenants is provided in Bylaw 2.14.3 (c),
which details how members of the Synod have agreed to respond
“even if the alleged violation of Article XIII of the Constitution is
considered to be ‘public.’” In such case Matthew 18:15 is still fol-
lowed.

Question 2: ““May this testimony be immediate in response to pub-
lic sin?”
Opinion: See the answer to question | above.

Question 3: “If the matter is ‘public,’ representing a false doctrine
or practice which is affecting congregation(s) whose
care we have been charged with, are we, the called
pastors of those congregations, prevented from warn-
ing our flocks and sister congregations that are being

“impacted by said false doctrine or practice if we are
also party to on-going dispute resolution procedures
set forth in Bylaw [section 2.14]?”

Opinion: If a false doctrine or practice is public, a pastor is not pre-
vented (while observing principles of Christian love) from inform-
ing his own congregation(s) regarding true doctrine or practice
when there is danger that the flock will be harmed by the false-
hood. This remains true (and is not to be regarded as “publicity”)

also if he becomes a party to ongoing dispute resolution proce--

dures. However, he may not assume this responsibility for other
congregations that are not under his care or for the general public
(which would constitute the “publicity” that the bylaw prohibits).

Adopted April 18-19, 2005

Approval of Congregation Constitutions
by District Boards of Directors (05-2424)

In a letter dated May 16, 2005, the secretary of a district, writing
on behalf of his district’s board of directors, submitted questions
regarding matters pertaining to the approval process of congrega-
tions’ constitutions and bylaws involving his district’s constitution
committee and board of directors.

Question 1: A congregation of our district has sought approval of
bylaw provisions to its constitution that include a state-
ment that prohibits women from serving “as a teacher
of an adult Bible class containing men.” Our district’s
constitution committee referred this back to the con-
gregation under the opinion that this statement would
not be consistent with the policy or theology of the
Synod. Is the inclusion of this phrase consistent with

the policy of the Synod regarding congregational con-
stitutions? If not, does this provide sufficient basis for
the board of directors to decline approval of the pro-
posed revision?

Opinion: In an April 29, 1983 response to questions from a district
constitution committee regarding a “debatable constitution” before
the committee, the Commission on Constitutional Matters offered
the following opinion regarding an article in that congregation’s
constitution that was very similar to the bylaw statement currently
in question:

If this article implies that women can teach only women and chil-
dren, it is not acceptable. The Commission can find no evidence that
the Synod takes such a restrictive position toward the role of women in
the church. Therefore, the Commission on Constitutional Matters con-
cludes that the position taken in the constitution under consideration
does not agree with the practice of the Synod and goes beyond its pre-
sent confessional stance, and is therefore unacceptable (Ag. 1625C).
The Commission reaffirms this opinion and suggests that if any

party believes that there has been a change in the teaching or prac-
tice of the Synod relevant to this question since it was provided,
such theological questions should be addressed to the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations.

Question 2: In a matter related to the first question, the above-men-
tioned phrase is modeled on bylaws of another congre-
gation in the district that were approved at least 80
years ago. This congregation has also submitted a revi-
sion of its constitution and bylaws. In the case of pro-
posed changes to a constitution and/or bylaws, do the
entire constitution and bylaws come under review
again, or only those portions that include changes from
the previous edition?

Opinion: It is reasonable and in keeping with earlier opinions of
the Commission on Constitutional Matters to request and review
entire documents, constitutions and bylaws, when changes are sub-
mitted to district constitution committees. A May 17, 2001 opin-
ion (01-2222) stated, “It is the primary interest of the committee,
therefore, to take care that nothing in the documents they are exam-
ining is contrary to [Holy Scripture, the Confessions, and the teach-
ings and practices of the Synod].” Again (according to June 10,
1995 Opinion Ag. 2008), “if the constitution and bylaws of a con-
gregation included something which was not in keeping with the
Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions of the Synod, even though that
constitution and bylaws had been previously approved by a district
constitution committee, if something was now identified which was
contrary to the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod,
the congregation could be required to make necessary changes to
brings its documents into conformity with those synodical docu-
ments and positions.” In its January 9-10, 1987 Opinion Ag.
1796A, the Commission.also stated, “‘when error is discovered, it is
contrary to all logic and Christian expectation to suggest that it not
be corrected.”

Given these prior statements of the Commission, not only
should the complete documents of a congregation come under re-
view when amendments are made, but any provision previously ap-
proved that is not in agreement with the doctrine and practice of
the Synod today should be given attention by a constitution com-
mittee.

Adopted June 30, 2005

Authority of District Board of Directors
to Instruct District Nominations Process (05-2425)

In a letter dated May 17, 2005, a pastor of the Synod included a
copy of a document adopted by his district’s board of directors per-
taining to the district’s nominations and elections process. He ques-
tioned the right of the board to request specific information from
nominees and to instruct the nominations and eleetions process to
act on the basis of the receipt of that information. The mailing of
the board of directors included the statement: “If the nominee does
not provide all the information requested they (sic) will not be
placed on the ballot.”

Question: Does the district board of directors have the authority to

2007 Convention Workbook