LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 23, 2003, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question 2:

If a member of the Synod were to sign a statement such as the example listed below, would
his action be interpreted by the Commission as (a) making a formal statement of brotherly
dissent as described in Bylaw 2.39 c; (b) engaging in an activity whereby each signatory
would be liable for a complaint to be lodged against him by another member of the Synod;
or (c) simply stating his personal opinion in public according to our country’s freedom of
speech as protected by the Bill of Rights?
(Please note: this request for a ruling is not asking in any way for approval or acceptance of
the details found in the following statement, which is provided simply for the purpose of
serving as an example. It is provocative with highly-charged terms in an attempt to
resemble actual documents of this kind which circulate in the Synod at present.)
We, the undersigned, declare with the signatures affixed to this document our
formal protest against, and rejection of, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) ruling
in the Benke case. We are in total concurrence with the Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz’s
protest against the DRP’s decision.
Furthermore, we believe that a grave injustice has been done to Christ and His
Church in that:
1) …the CCM acted contrary to the Synod’s Constitution when it adopted a
position on ecclesiastical supervision which is contrary to the Scriptures
and the Confessions.
2) …the CTCR acted contrary to the Synod’s Constitution when it interpreted
Resolution 3-07 to include praying together with non-Christian religions as
Dr. Benke did in A Prayer for America.
3) …the DRP was misguided by the CCM and CTCR rulings and that in
making its judgment as it did, it violated the constitutional mandate that all
judgments must be founded solely on the basis of Scripture and the
Confessions.
4) …Dr. Schulz is correct in his assessment of these points as he clearly
stated in his report.
5) …Dr. Kieschnick has thrown our Synod into great turmoil and jeopardy
regarding our Constitution, our confession, our missions, and our financial
situation—and that he must be held accountable for this.
We believe that the ruling made by the Dispute Resolution Panel must be
overturned on the basis of the clear evidence provided by Dr. Schulz from God’s
Word and the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The precedent
which the Dispute Resolution Panel has put into place sets the Synod on a new
theological and confessional course contrary to that which it has maintained in the
past. We are, therefore, compelled by truth to reject the DRP ruling.

Opinion: The Bylaws do not prohibit criticism or comment by any party, member or non-member,
regarding an opinion rendered by the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Bylaw 3.73 provides that
“all officers, boards, and commissions shall be accountable to the Synod for all their actions, and any
decision of such officers, boards, and commissions may be appealed to the national convention of the
Synod.”
Question 3:

The use of the term “ecclesiastical supervision” in recent CCM rulings such as CCM ruling
(02-2309) “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Conflict of Interest” raises certain questions.
128