LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 314

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

314

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
D. We call particular attention to the fact that the Synod and every member of the Synod accepts without reservation the confessional standard as set forth in Article II of the Synod’s Constitution;
these are the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in
the Synod (Article VI). Furthermore, members who act contrary to
these Confessions may be expelled from the Synod (Article XIII).
The Confessions mentioned in Article II are the only confessions to
which pastors and teachers bind themselves in taking their ordination and installation vows or to which a congregation binds itself
when it becomes a member of the Synod. It necessarily follows that
in order to make any other confessional or doctrinal statement binding upon the members of the Synod, the statement must be made a
part of the Constitution. Accordingly, Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 of the San Francisco convention, in our opinion, should
have been treated as an amendment to the Constitution rather than
as a measure that could be adopted by a simple majority vote.
E. Therefore, in our opinion, Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 of
the San Francisco convention is unconstitutional, not because of any
inherent defect in the wording or the content of any doctrinal statement adopted by the Synod as a public doctrine but because Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 was not submitted as an amendment to
the Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article XIV.

The 1962 convention considered the matter further and recognized
that the Synod could not require as a condition of membership that a
member be bound by a doctrinal statement or resolution adopted by
the Synod in convention, unless the process of constitutional amendment was followed, and adopted 1962 Res. 6-01:
Whereas, The confessional basis which all members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod are bound to accept without reservation
is set forth in Article II of the Constitution of the Synod, namely: the
Holy Scriptures and the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church (see
Reports and Memorials “Reference Material” [yellow], p. 3); and
Whereas, Article VI of the Constitution of the Synod prescribes
that one of the conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the
Synod is: “Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II,” which
article prescribes only the Holy Scriptures and the Symbolical Books of
the Lutheran Church; and
Whereas, The Synod at its 1959 convention, in answer to a question
as to the binding force of statements on doctrine and practice, passed
a resolution known as Resolution 9 of Committee 3, declaring that the
Synod’s pastors, teachers, and professors are held to teach and act in
harmony with every doctrinal statement of a confessional nature adopted by the Synod as a true exposition of the Holy Scriptures, which
are to be regarded as public doctrine (publica doctrina) (see Reports and
Memorials [yellow], “Reference Material” p. 22); and
Whereas, Questions have been raised as to whether this resolution,
by making such doctrinal statements binding on members of the Synod,
is not thereby requiring members of the Synod to subscribe to doctrinal
statements additional to those which are required by the Constitution of
the Synod and therefore has the effect of amending the Constitution by
a simple resolution; and
Whereas, Article XIV of the Constitution of the Synod provides that
an amendment of the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote of
all votes cast and submission to congregations of the Synod; and
Whereas, The Synod has been requested to declare Resolution 9
unconstitutional because (1) it has the effect of amending the Synod’s
Constitution and (2) was not submitted as an amendment as required by
Article XIV; and
Whereas, The doctrinal content or Scriptural correctness of any
doctrinal statements is not being judged or questioned in the consideration of the constitutionality of Resolution 9, but the question of constitutionality is confined to proper procedure, as fully set forth in the
supplemental report of the standing Committee on Constitutional Matters, in which the committee rendered the opinion that Resolution 9 is
unconstitutional (see Unprinted Memorial 601-A); and

2013 Convention Workbook

Whereas, Your Floor Committee 6 of this convention is in agreement with the opinion of the standing Committee on Constitutional Matters; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod declare Resolution 9 of Committee 3 of
the 1959 synodical convention unconstitutional on the ground that said
resolution has the effect of amending the confessional basis of the Constitution of the Synod without following the procedure required by Article XIV of the Constitution.

The issue is further clarified by recognizing that one must unconditionally accept and subscribe to the confessional position set forth
in Article II of the Constitution to obtain and retain membership.
The Synod provides no avenue of dissent from that unconditional
subscription. With respect to doctrinal resolutions and statements,
however, the Synod expressly recognizes and provides for a process
of dissent. While members of the Synod are expected to honor and
uphold the resolutions of the Synod, including doctrinal resolutions
and doctrinal statements, the Bylaws specifically provide for a process
of dissent, described in Bylaw section 1.8:
1.8.1

1.8.2

While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of the
Synod are expected as part of the life together within the fellowship of the Synod to honor and uphold the resolutions of the
Synod.
Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers and then brought
to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations before finding expression as an overture to the convention calling for revision or recision. While the conscience
of the dissenter shall be respected, the consciences of others, as
well as the collective will of the Synod, shall also be respected.

(Adopted March 20, 2012)

Transfer of Congregations Between Districts (12-2636)
With a March 26, 2012 emailed memo, the Secretary of the Synod
requested an opinion from the commission in response to questions
surfaced by the request of a new congregation of an LCMS district
to have its membership transferred to the neighboring district. The
congregation is situated on the border of its current district but is the
product of a mission effort that also involved the neighboring district.
Question: Does Synod Bylaw 4.1.1.3 pertain in this situation, since
the transfer would in effect change the boundaries of
the districts, or does Bylaw 4.1.1.4 pertain, since this is
intended to be no more than a transfer of congregations
between districts at the request of a congregation?
Opinion: Since the transfer to another district “is intended to be
no more than a transfer of congregations between districts at the
request of a congregation,” only Synod Bylaw 4.1.1.4 pertains.
According to Res. 7-10 of the 1995 Synod convention,
[Resolved,] That in order to provide direction for transfer of congregations, the following bylaw provision be added:
4.03 d Transfer of congregations between districts is completed upon
approval of the respective district boards of directors at the request of the congregation [current Bylaw 4.1.1.4]. Transfer of
congregations between partner churches requires the additional
approval of the governing boards of the church bodies [current
Bylaw 4.1.1.5].

And be it further
Resolved, That such actions be reported by the district president
of the transferring district in the official periodicals of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod [1995 Convention Proceedings, p. 153].

Synod Bylaw 4.1.1.310 is the provision “for the formation, division, realignment, merger, or dissolution of a district or districts …
initiated by a national convention of the Synod or the Board of Directors of the Synod” [emphasis added]. The 1995 convention resolution
made it clear that new Bylaw 4.03 d [2010 Bylaw 4.1.1.4] was an