LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 289

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
or promote any position contrary to the position of the
Synod?
Opinion: Again, the above-referenced 1969 opinion (dated October 16,
1969, entitled “Dissenting Groups and Activities Within the Synod”)
speaks to this issue:
In this opinion the Commission is not attempting to limit the
right of individuals to speak their own minds. Before and after the
passage or rejection of synodical resolutions individuals must be
free to express their concerns, especially to their peers. Frank and
open discussion, carried on in a spirit of Christian love and forbearance, must be part of our life together in the Synod. It can be proper
and salutary. However, in this opinion the Commission is addressing
itself to the organizing of groups, to the calling of meetings, secret
or open, to attempted manipulation of existing groups, to circularizing activities, and to a wide scale of joint actions, all of which by
their very nature tend to polarize or fragment the constituency of the
Synod, and thus have the effect of disrupting the synodical unity.
All members of the Synod and its congregations are to beware
of the danger of groups and activities which divide and splinter the
Synod. Synodical and district officers and board and commission
members have a special responsibility to identify divisive and subversive movements and to avoid them. By their example and advice
they are to conserve and promote the unity of the true faith and the
oneness of the Synod.
Accordingly, it is not in harmony with the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod for any member of the Synod or any groups
within the Synod to teach publicly, publicly advocate, or promote
any position contrary to the position of the Synod. Dissent activities are to be governed by section 1.8 of the Bylaws of the Synod to
which members have “commit[ted] themselves to act in accordance
with” and “under which they have agreed to live and work together”
(Bylaw 1.3.4).

		
Issue 2:
Under the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod, must individual members or congregational
members of the Synod follow the dispute resolution processes of the Synod if they have a dispute with another
member of the Synod involving theological, doctrinal,
or ecclesiastical issues?
Opinion: Yes. Any Synod member, whether acting individually or
as a member of an organization of members, must follow the dispute resolution processes of the Synod, just as he or she must follow the dissent processes of the Synod (Issue 1 above).
The dispute resolution processes of the Synod are under the following: Bylaw section 1.10 (procedures for disputes between members of the Synod), Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17 (procedures which
could lead to expulsion from membership), Bylaw 3.10.4.7.9 (procedures for addressing complaints regarding faculty members of seminaries), and Bylaw 3.10.5.6.9 (procedures for addressing complaints
regarding faculty members of colleges and universities).
All members of the Synod commit to act in accordance with the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod (see Issue 1 above and its citation of Constitution Article XIV and Bylaw 1.3.4.1). That of course
includes the bylaws governing the various dispute resolution processes of the Synod.
		
Issue 3:
Under the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of
the Synod, what authority does an individual or congregational member of the Synod have in regard to
ecclesiastical supervision in the LCMS?
Opinion: No individual or congregational member or organization
of members of the Synod has any authority to provide ecclesiastical

289

supervision in the Synod. The Synod has “indentified those responsible for ecclesiastical supervision of its members, including such
matters as advice and counsel, as well as suspension of membership and forfeiture of it for failure to continue to meet membership
requirements” (Bylaw 2.1.2).
Bylaw 1.2.1 (g) defines ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod:
(g) Ecclesiastical supervision: The responsibility, primarily of the
President of the Synod and district presidents, to supervise on behalf of
the Synod the doctrine, life, and administration of its members, officers,
and agencies. Such supervision, subject to the provisions of the Synod’s
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions, includes visitation, evangelical
encouragement and support, care, protection, counsel, advice, admonition, and, when necessary, appropriate disciplinary measures to assure
that the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod are followed
and implemented. Thus, ecclesiastical supervision is also the presenting,
interpreting, and applying of the collective will of the Synod’s congregations. Ecclesiastical supervision does not include the responsibility
to observe, monitor, control, or direct the day-to-day activities of individual members of the Synod, whether in the conduct of their work or
in their private lives (cf. Bylaw 2.14.1 [a]). Further, those constitutional
articles and bylaws pertaining to ecclesiastical supervision shall determine the full definition of ecclesiastical supervision.

The permissibility under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod
of establishing organizations whose purpose might usurp responsibilities which the Synod has reserved to itself has been previously raised
on numerous occasions. A similar question was raised and answered
in Opinion 05-2443, “Activity of Small Groups Within the Synod”:
On October 16, 1969, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
issued a landmark opinion on the subject of “Dissenting Groups and
Activities Within the Synod.” A portion of that opinion speaks directly
to the question above:
The very nature and purpose of a synodical fellowship need to
be restated once again. A synod is a “walking together.” The choice
of the word “synod,” derived from the Greek, is significant because
it emphasizes the idea of unity. For good reason our church body
has chosen for itself the name: “The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod.” We are congregations, pastors, and teachers who have decided to join hands and to walk together.
The Preamble of the Constitution has the sub‑heading: “Reason
for the Forming of a Synodical Union.” Union was the major concern in effecting the organization of the Synod. The concepts of fellowship, togetherness, brotherhood, and “walking together” express
the basic purpose of the Synod’s existence.
The reasons given in the Preamble for forming the union are “1.
The example of the apostolic church, Acts:15:1–31,” and “2. Our
Lord’s will that the diversities of gifts should be for the common
profit, 1 Cor. 12:4–31.” Once again the emphasis falls upon the idea
of unity.
In Article III, Objects, the fundamental thrust of the Synod is
not only clearly stated but is given preeminence. The first purpose
of the Synod is listed as: “The conservation and promotion of the
unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3–6; 1 Cor. 1:10) and a united defense
against schism and sectarianism (Rom. 16:17).” The Scripture references include the admonitions to preserve the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, to avoid all divisions, and to beware of division
makers.
Objects 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 continue with this theme. All of these
imply the quest for oneness, its preservation and extension.
Objects 7 and 8 need special emphasis in view of the questions
which have been raised regarding the formation and continuation
of groups which attempt to carry out the purposes which the Synod
reserves for itself:
7. The supervision of the ministers and teachers of Synod
with regard to the performance of their official duties;

2013 Convention Workbook