LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 328

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

328 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

filing a suit, friendly suit, against the Synod in order
to get a judge to make a decision that we would know
where we are, I’m in a conundrum. I don’t know what
to do. I don’t know if that answers your question to-
tally, but that’s about as far as I can go. If you want to
pursue it, go ahead.” May Dr. Kuhn continue to serve
as a member or chairman of the Board of Directors
while actively failing to affirm the will of the conven-
tion?
Opinion: It is unclear from the question as presented whether Dr.
Kuhn was making a presentation as chairman of the Board of Di-
rectors or as an individual member of the Synod. As an individual
member of the Synod, Dr. Kuhn is entitled to express his opinion
regarding any issue. If his comments were made as a member (and
particularly as the chairman) of the Board of Directors, the com-
ments quoted would be highly inappropriate and would at least sub-
ject him to the admonition of the President. While the chairman, as
with any member of the Board of Directors, is entitled and encour-
aged to speak his or her mind in the deliberations of the Board,
under the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws the Board as a whole,
and all those speaking on its behalf, are bound to support the ac-
tions of the Synod and not to encourage litigation against it. Pri-
mary responsibility for determining the appropriate response to the
actions described belongs to the Board of Directors itself and to the
President. It is the President under Art. XI B 4 who is required to
see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out.

Question 4: Is the described conduct of Dr. Kuhn and the Board
subject to either the dispute resolution process under
Bylaw [sic 1.09] 1.10 or, based on repeated offensive
conduct, the provisions of Bylaw 2.14?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.14 addresses the issue of expulsion of a congre-
gation or individual from membership in the Synod and is there-
fore inapplicable to the Board of Directors as an officer of the
Synod. Expulsion from the Synod is governed by Art. XIII of the
Constitution and may occur only where a member acts contrary to
the confession laid down in Art. II and the conditions of member-
ship laid down in Art. VI or persists in offensive conduct. It is not
the responsibility or authority of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters but rather of the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor under
Bylaw 2.14 to make an initial determination whether the fact sce-
nario described would meet such standard, and only pursuant to the
processes described in that bylaw.

With respect to the possible applicability of the dispute resolu-
tion process under Bylaw section 1.10, that bylaw section identi-
fies the persons and issues which may be dealt with under that
process. As a member of the Synod, Dr. Kuhn would be a person to
whom the bylaw applies, and it would similarly apply to members
of the Board of Directors either as individual members of the
Synod or as lay members of a congregation of the Synod holding a
position within the Synod (Bylaw 1.10.2). To the extent that the
dispute involves theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues
(other than expulsion) the bylaw is the exclusive remedy to resolve
such dispute between members of the Synod. To the extent that
there continues to be a dispute between Dr. Kuhn or other mem-
bers of the Board of Directors and another qualifying party under
Bylaw 1.10.2 that is based on theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiasti-
cal issues, the dispute resolution process contained in Bylaw sec-
tion 1.10 would apply.

Adopted Jan. 31—Feb. 1, 2006

Congregational Hosting of Auxiliary’s Worship Service
with Holy Communion (05-2454)

In a letter addressed to the Commission dated December 13,
2005, an ordained minister of the Synod serving on the 2006 Inter-
national Lutheran Laymen’s League (ILLL) convention committee
asked a series of questions regarding how a former Commission on
Constitutional Matters opinion concerning a circuit conference
communion service (Ag. 1323, December, 1978) pertains to the au-
thority of an auxiliary such as the ILLL.

Question 1: Does the board of governors have the authority to de-
mand that communion be part of the international con-

2007 Convention Workbook

vention?

Opinion: Commission on Constitutional Matters Opinion Ag. 1323,
issued December 8, 1978, addressed a similar issue. Thus, just as a
circuit conference of the Synod can make no demand that a con-
gregation celebrate Holy Communion for the conference and pre-
scribe to the congregation who could or could not be admitted to
that celebration (Ag. 1323), an auxiliary of the Synod (including
its governing board) cannot make such a demand. Article VII of
the Constitution of the Synod spells out the relation of the Synod to
its members:

In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical gov-
ermment 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-
cordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far
as the condition of a congregation is concerned.

Question 2: Let’s say that a couple of years before an ILLL con-
vention a congregation aggress to host a communion
worship service at a convention. The pastor is called
elsewhere. A new pastor is called. The new pastor ex-
presses reservations about the appropriateness of host-
ing such a communion worship service. Does the con-
gregation have the freedom to remove communion
from the service?

Opinion: Yes. See the answer to question #1 above. Should the
ILLL no longer wish to have the congregation serve as host, it may
respond accordingly.

Question 3: Is the ILLL telling the host congregation who can and
who cannot be admitted to Communion?

Opinion: The Commission does not interpret what the ILLL might
be communicating to a congregation. If the question is, “Can the
ILLL tell the host congregation who can and who cannot be admit-
ted to Communion?” the answer is “no.” See the answer to question
#1 above.

Question 4: May a congregation host a communion worship ser-
vice at a convention in another district without the dis-
trict president’s approval?

Qpinion: There is no requirement that a congregation obtain ap-
proval from a district president before hosting worship with Holy
Communion. The congregation as a member of the Synod will rec-
ognize, honor, and respect the Office of District President and the
fact that the Synod has divided itself into districts and circuits espe-
cially for the sake of responsible ecclesiastical supervision by the
appropriate ecclesiastical supervisors. For instance, a district pres-
ident may exercise ecclesiastical supervision in regard to the activ-
ity of the local convention committee (which normally includes
local pastors) occurring in his area of jurisdiction.

Question 5: Must the pastor from the host congregation be present
for the hosted Communion worship service?

Opinion: The Commission suggests that this question be asked of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

Question 6: Must any other member of the host congregation be
present for the hosted Communion worship service?

Opinion: The Commission suggests that this question be asked of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

Due to the theological implications in all of the above questions,
the Commission suggests consulting with the Commission on The-
ology and Church Relations as well as its 1983 report, Theology
and Practice of the Lord’s Supper. In Res. 3-12, the 1983 conven-
tion of the Synod encouraged broad and comprehensive study of
this document by the members of the Synod. On pages 23 and 24 of
this document, the subject of “‘extracongregational services” is ad-
dressed.

Adopted Jan. 31—Feb. 1, 2005