LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 297

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
II. “People are more important than rules.”
Of course. Our Lord’s death on the cross has made that clear for all
time. And yet, we need to guard against wrong conclusions. Even in
the matter of our redemption God, in spite of His love for sinners, did
not simply set His Law aside. The Law needed to be fulfilled and the
penalty for its transgression needed to be paid. God’s grace did not come
cheap. It cost Him the best that He had. It cost Him the lifeblood of His
Son. All too often “people are more important than rules” becomes a
rationalistic slogan.
Rules seem to be fine as long as they operate in our favor; but when
we find ourselves in disagreement with the rules we easily resort to the
role of “justifying ourselves.” Furthermore, the slogan is fallacious if it
is meant to imply that any person is exempt from or above commonly
agreed upon rules or laws. In our own nation we have established once
again that not even the highest officials are above the law.
We have already indicated above the place of law, rule, covenant,
contract in our life together in the Synod. These rules which we have
adopted are not in opposition to the welfare of people; on the contrary,
they are designed to protect and to foster the welfare of people. When
a few rebel against the “rules” and resort to arguments such as “people
are more important than rules” to justify their action, one needs to ask
which is the more important: the self-will of the few or the welfare of
the many? If certain “rules” are really injurious to the many, then the
many—not just the few—have the right and the means to change the
rules. But until the many have reached that decision, the few are obligated to respect the “rules” as well as are the “many” who, too, are “people.” The “rules” which the Synod has adopted for its self-government
are primarily its Constitution and its Bylaws.
III. “But the Bylaws are not applicable to our present situation.”
This assertion is made especially with reference to the establishment
of Seminex and to the certification, placement, calling, ordination, and
installation of Seminex graduates. The Commission holds that the argument is invalid. To say that “no one ever anticipated such a situation”
does not mean that the Constitution and Bylaws do not apply. On the
contrary, the bylaws do indeed speak directly and clearly to the issue
confronting us today.
The question is not: “How may Seminex students be qualified for
the ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod?” The question
rather is: “How has the Synod decided that it wishes to have pastors
trained, qualified, called, ordained, and installed in its congregations?”
In answer to that question the Synod has spoken again and again.
Perhaps no other subject receives as much attention in the bylaws. The
Synod has stated in great detail that it will train its own pastors, set its
own requirements, do its own certifying, etc. In short, the Synod has
made it plain that it will not permit a small group within the Synod to
usurp these functions which the Synod has reserved to itself.
Furthermore, it is not correct to say that bylaws apply only to ordinary but not to extraordinary situations. Such an assertion forgets that
one of the principal reasons that an organization drafts a Constitution
and Bylaws is to set forth already in advance the guidelines for its conduct in the future, so that it will not find it necessary to make basic decisions in an ad hoc and emotionally charged situation.
IV. “Under Article VII congregations are completely autonomous.”
Especially the Apology to the Augsburg Confession is quoted in
this connection. A few familiar quotations from Walther are also usually

297

ushered in support of this thesis. (It may be noted in passing that Dr.
Walther also had some pointed things to say about the responsibilities of
congregations toward the other members of the Synod). The difficulty
lies in the word “completely,” whether it is stated or, as more often,
merely implied.
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod does place great stress on
the autonomy of the local congregation. Let that be emphasized. At the
same time, however, it should be stated that autonomy must be regarded
in relative terms. There is no absolute freedom this side of heaven. Every freedom that men claim for themselves is only relative and is circumscribed by one or more considerations. In various church polities
some forms of church government grant congregations more autonomy
than do others. Among the Baptists, for example, there is a high degree
of congregational autonomy.
Also among us, however, it is more exact to speak of Missouri Synod polity as synodical polity rather than congregational polity. We are
primarily a federation or association of self-governing congregations.
But the very word “federation” or “association” indicates that the “selfgoverning” aspect has some modifications. When a congregation joins
the Synod it does give up certain rights and privileges. For example, it
may no longer call in a completely unrestricted way whomever it wishes
as its pastor; it may no longer live only for itself and its own local concerns; it may no longer use textbooks which are doctrinally unsound for
the instruction of its children; it may no longer enter unilaterally into
fellowship with other church bodies; etc. As a congregation surrenders
such “rights” it gains in reality great benefits.
One of these benefits is the assurance that it will have assistance
in finding a pastor who will preach and teach the Word of God in all
its purity and administer the Sacraments according to Christ’s institution. Indeed, this was one of the major concerns when the Synod was
organized, a concern which was felt very keenly on the congregational
level among the lay people of that day. Consequently, even though there
were Lutheran colleges and seminaries available for the training of its
pastors, the Synod from the very beginning decided that it would train
its own pastors. In fact, even before the Synod was organized some of
the forefathers established a log cabin in Perry County, Missouri, for
this purpose.
Those rights which a congregation still retains are zealously guarded. The Commission on Constitutional Matters has ruled more than once
in favor of the maintenance of the rights of a self-governing congregation. It has held, for instance, that even though the Synod may suspend a
pastor from membership in the Synod, only the congregation can decide
whether it will depose its pastor and retain its membership in the Synod
or whether it will retain its pastor and give up its synodical membership.
This is a right which continues to belong to the congregation. It must
be admitted that sometimes the line of distinction between the rights of
a congregation and the rights of the Synod is somewhat blurred. Consequently, it is wholesome for the Synod to be constantly concerned
about respecting and preserving whatever autonomy is guaranteed to
its member congregations. In the process, however, the case in behalf
of the autonomy of a local congregation must not be overstated. That
congregation, too, has made a solemn covenant with its fellow member
congregations of the Synod. Christians have the right to expect that fellow Christians are persons of honor and integrity who keep their word.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters submits these comments
in the hope that they will help to clarify some of the issues confronting
our church, to the end that we may walk together in love as children of
God who have assumed common commitments in the service of our
gracious Lord and Savior.

2013 Convention Workbook