LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 313

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
by the CCM shall be binding on the question decided unless and until
it is overruled by a convention of the Synod.” As such, a hearing panel
is bound by prior opinions of the CCM, since a convention of the
Synod has never overruled an opinion of the commission.
With respect to the opinions of the CTCR or interpretations of the
CCM provided to a panel in response to questions submitted under
Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k), a different result attaches. While, as discussed
above, in general the opinions of the CTCR are provided for the
“guidance” of the Synod, Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k) (4) specifically states:
“When an opinion has been requested, the time limitations will not
apply until the parties have received the opinion. The panel must follow any opinion received from either the CCM or the CTCR.” Therefore, unlike other letters, opinions, study guides, and other materials
prepared by the CTCR, in this particular circumstance the Synod has
chosen to bind a panel, for the purposes solely of the case then before
it, to an opinion issued by the CTCR when a question is submitted to
it by the panel under this bylaw.
With respect to interpretations provided to a panel by the CCM,
such opinions, as described above, are always binding on the Synod.
No difference in weight or significance attaches to an opinion of the
CCM under Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k).
Question 2: Does the Synod require as a condition of membership
that a member be bound by a doctrinal statement or
resolution by the Synod in convention?
Opinion: No. This issue was resolved at least as far back as 1962.
The 1959 convention had adopted Resolution 9 of Floor Committee
3, which read as follows:
Subscribing to the “Brief Statement,” the General Confessions, and
Particular Symbols of the Lutheran Church; Teaching the Doctrine
of Inspiration at Our Colleges and Seminaries; Using Scripture as
the Word of God
RESOLUTION 9, COMMITTEE 3
Whereas, The pastors, teachers, and professors of Synod at the time
of their ordination and installation pledge themselves to be faithful to
the Holy Scriptures and to the Lutheran Confessions (“…solemnly
pledge to the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God and to
the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church as a true exposition of the
Scriptures…” Synodical Handbook, 4.19; 4.21; 4.23); and
Whereas, Some persons have inquired as to the binding force of
the Brief Statement as well as other statements on doctrine and practice
formally adopted by Synod; and
Whereas, Article II-C of the Articles of Incorporation of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod lists as an objective of Synod “to exercise supervision over such pastors and teachers as to doctrine, practice,
and performance of their official duties”; therefore be it
Resolved:
A. That Synod further clarify its position by reaffirming that every doctrinal statement of a confessional nature adopted by Synod as a true
exposition of the Holy Scriptures is to be regarded as public doctrine
(publica doctrina) in Synod; and
B. That Synod’s pastors, teachers, and professors are held to teach and
act in harmony with such statements; and
C. That those who believe that such statements are not satisfactory in
part or in their entirety are not to teach contrary to them, but rather are
to present their concern to their brethren in the ministry, particularly in
conferences, to the appropriate district officials, and if necessary to the
synodical officials.

The issue of the constitutionality of adding to the confessional
statement of the Synod and effectively the requirements of membership by resolution, rather than by the process of amending the
Constitution, was then raised. While no formal opinion of the CCM

313

had been previously requested, the issue was submitted to them in
preparation for the 1962 convention. During the CCM’s meeting of
May 14–15, 1962, most of the entire meeting was spent examining
and discussing the issue. A standing committee was appointed to draft
an opinion which was published as a supplement to the CCM’s report
to the convention. That opinion directly addressed and answered this
question:
Supplement to Report of Committee on Constitutional Matters
(re Resolution 9) 1962 CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS, p. 187
1. The most controversial resolution presented to and adopted by
the San Francisco convention in 1959 was, without doubt, Resolution 9
of Floor Committee 3 (Proceedings, 1959, pp. 191, 192). This was evident while the convention was in session. It became obvious also in several ways after the convention had adjourned; for example, for the first
time, if memory serves well, the Committee on Constitutional Matters
was asked by a district (English District) to rule on the constitutionality
of an adopted resolution.
2. The request of the English District seemed to us to be based, at
least in part, on the fact that Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3 had not
been given to the congregations for general study prior to the convention. On this basis, our committee formulated an opinion which stated
that it could not declare this resolution unconstitutional on this technical
ground, because Resolution 9 had been formulated by a floor committee
of the convention in answer to several overtures and it was therefore
impossible to present it to the congregations prior to the convention. Our
committee admittedly did not pass on the question of the constitutionality of Resolution 9 because there seemed to be no compelling reason to
do so at that time. For one thing, the President and vice-presidents of the
Synod had promised an amplification and clarification of the resolution,
and protocol indicated that this clarification should be published before
any opinion would be expressed on the constitutionality of Resolution
9; again, it was obvious that the Cleveland convention would be asked
for a ruling on the constitutionality of Resolution 9, either by a vote to
rescind or to reaffirm this resolution.
3. However, it is now common knowledge that a continuing and
ever-increasing concern over this issue has been expressed by many
members of the Synod. As a result a request has again been addressed
to our committee to render an opinion on the real issue without further
delay. It seems to us as of now, that the doctrinal issues confronting
the church will be discussed much more dispassionately if the uncertainty of the status of Resolution 9 could be removed. This consideration
prompts us to submit the following supplemental opinion to the section
of our report captioned “Resolution 9 of Floor Committee 3” (p. 227,
Reports and Memorials).
A. The right of the Synod to add to Article II of our Constitution
(“Confession”) by following the prescribed method of amending the
Constitution (Article XIV) must be recognized and accepted.
B. The Brief Statement, which has become the focal point of attention in this present controversy, is not under attack as such; it
has been praised highly by many who wish Resolution 9 rescinded
and also by those who agree with Resolution 9. In expressing an
opinion as to the constitutionality of Resolution 9, we are in no way
underestimating or minimizing the value of the Brief Statement or
of any other doctrinal statement accepted by the Synod, nor are we
questioning their Scriptural correctness. This is not the province of
the Committee on Constitutional Matters.
C. By including paragraph “B” of Resolution 9 of Floor Committee
3 (“That Synod’s pastors, teachers, and professors are held to teach
and act in harmony with such statements”) in the resolution, the resolution, in our opinion, was given the effect of amending Article II
of our Constitution. Furthermore, paragraph “B” limits the binding
force of doctrinal statements to pastors, teachers, and professors and
says nothing about its binding force on member congregations of the
Synod.

2013 Convention Workbook