LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 15-16, 2003, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question 12: May pastors of congregations that have signed the “Keller Resolution” be voting delegates
at a District convention or a synodical convention?
Opinion: Unless an otherwise eligible pastor of a congregation has been placed on suspended status, he
may serve as a voting delegate at a District or Synod convention (Bylaw 2.25).
184. Questions re Permission Given by Ecclesiastical Supervisor (03-2353)
A member of the Synod asks the following questions of the Commission:
Question 1:

If an ecclesiastical supervisor approves a text or speech that is in doctrinal error, is he, or
the writer/speaker, or both able to be charged/disciplined for said text or speech?

Opinion: If an ecclesiastical supervisor approves a text or speech that is in doctrinal error, both he and the
writer (speaker) are to correct or amend such error. CCM opinion 02-2309 states:
When an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error in his counsel, it is incumbent upon that
supervisor to correct or amend it. The member should then be held to consider the
corrected counsel. Failure to consider such amended admonition could form the basis for
disciplinary action as provided in Article XIII.
Question 2:

As a corollary, if a publication ‘passes doctrinal review’ in accord with synodical Bylaws,
who is responsible for doctrinal errors that are found by others to be contained therein—the
author, the doctrinal reviewer or both?

Opinion: The procedures for doctrinal review are not the same as those for ecclesiastical supervision. Any
member of the Synod can make a challenge to a published item. Bylaw 10.15 a states; “A challenge to the
doctrinal review certification of a published item may be initiated by any member of the Synod.” It is
finally up to a panel of three doctrinal reviewers to determine what should be done with the published
material.
Question 3:

If an ecclesiastical supervisor gives one permission to do something that is in error, does
such permission also free one from accountability for other errors committed in the act or
process of doing the “permitted thing”?

Opinion: This question is answered in response to question 1. When an error is discovered, it is to be
corrected or amended.
Question 4:

Does “absolution” given by the ecclesiastical supervisor for “possible offense caused” by a
sinful action mean that an individual is also no longer responsible for the sin itself, that he
is under no compulsion and unable to be put under compulsion to renounce his action
before those who may have been misled by iteven before the whole Synod or World if
that sin is a generally known or publicized action? Does being forgiven by God remove the
necessity for a member of the Synod to renounce false teaching and correct both errors he
has proclaimed and false impressions he may have given?

Opinion: Although a part of this question is answered in opinion one, the issues pertaining to sin,
forgiveness by God and responsibility for a sin itself are questions which could be better addressed by the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

137