Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2002 › Page 3

LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 22, 2002, Page 3

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

Source: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (files.lcms.org)

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The Bylaws of the Synod do not restrict the method of selection or the composition of the seven Trustees
appointed by the Members of the Foundation pursuant to its own Bylaws, so long as there are at least
seven, and leaves to the wisdom of the Members of the Foundation the method of selection of those
trustees.
The Foundation’s amended Article II, Section 1 requires that four of these seven members of the Board of
Trustees be elected by the At Large Members of the Foundation (identified by Foundation Bylaw Article
I, Section 1 as five individuals appointed by the Board of Directors of the Synod) and that the remaining
three Trustees be elected by all the Members of the Foundation (the At Large Members as well as one
representative from each District, college, university, seminary, or other agency or auxiliary of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod that has entered into a formal partnership with the LCMS Foundation
as defined under policies of the corporation’s Board of Trustees). It is noted that the Synod’s Bylaw 3.603
b does not specify how these appointments should be accomplished. The amended Foundation bylaw calls
for the “election” of those trustees as the method of “appointing” them. Since the Bylaws of the Synod do
not restrict the manner of appointment, the Commission sees nothing that would prohibit the appointment
through an election process as outlined in the amended Foundation bylaw. The amendment to Article II,
Section 1 is therefore approved.
Article II, Section 3 of the Foundation’s Bylaws governing the filling of vacancies has also been
amended. The amended bylaw requires that any vacancy in a trusteeship be filled by that entity that
originally filled the position. This is in accord with Synod Bylaw 3.63 and with prior Opinion 99-2143 of
the Commission. The amendment to Article II, Section 3 of the Bylaws is therefore also approved.
5. Questions re Academic Freedom for Non-Member LCMS Faculty (02-2249)
In a letter dated January 15, 2002, a pastor referred to the Commission’s previous Opinion 99-2142 and
asked its application to a professor at a synodical school who is not a commissioned minister of the Synod
but is a member of an LCMS congregation.
Question 1:

“Page 320 of the 2002 Workbook of the Synod contains your response to ‘Question
regarding Academic Freedom (99-2142).’ You there write, ‘In the case of both categories
of persons, doctrinal resolutions and statements are to be honored and upheld until such
times as the Synod amends or repeals them’ (Bylaw 1.09 b). If there is disagreement,
‘Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements shall be governed by Bylaw 2.39 c’
(Bylaw 1.09 d). In the meanwhile, dissenters are to ‘continue to honor and uphold
publicly…the position of the Synod, not withstanding further study and action by the
Synod’ (Bylaw 1.09 c 10) or face removal from office (Bylaw 6.43 c 6). Does this apply to
a professor at a synodical school who is a member of a Missouri Synod congregation but
not a commissioned minister of the Synod? Specifically, is such a person governed by
Bylaw 2.39 c? The above quotation certainly seems to indicate that such a person is.”

Opinion: Bylaw 6.23 c requires that when laypersons are employed in full-time teaching positions, they
pledge to perform their duties in harmony with the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, the
Lutheran Confessions, the Synod’s doctrinal statements, and the policies of the Synod. Further, in
speaking of doctrinal resolutions, Bylaw 1.09 b states that doctrinal resolutions are to be honored and
upheld until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them.
Bylaw 2.39 applies to members of the Synod, and by definition the professor in question is not a member.
Bylaw 2.39 is therefore inapplicable. Any expression of disagreement or dissent from such faculty
member with a position of the Synod must not violate such non-member’s duty and agreement to perform
his or her duties “in harmony with the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, the Lutheran

3