LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 15-16, 2003, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

185. Confessional Statement and Voting Rights (03-2356; 03-2356A)
In letters dated May 30 and May 31, 2003, a District President and a parish pastor asked similar questions
regarding the voting rights of those who have signed certain documents or have declared themselves no
longer in fellowship with other members of the Synod.
Question 1:

Can signers of these documents (“That They May Be One” and “Keller Resolution”) be
voting delegates at conventions, or have they removed themselves from this particular right
and privilege by signing such documents?

Opinion: The Commission has answered this question in Opinion 03-2352, which is included in these
minutes.
Question 2:

Are individuals/congregations who have declared themselves to be no longer in fellowship
with other members of the Synod constitutionally authorized to sit as delegates at
synodical, District, and Circuit conferences and conventions? If so, under what parameters
and guidelines? If not, with what recourse for congregational/pastoral participation?

Opinion: Individuals and congregations continue to be members of the Synod until such time as their
membership is terminated. Individual members on suspended status are relieved of certain rights and
privileges during the period of suspension (Bylaw 2.25 c). Congregations on suspended status continue to
hold all rights and privileges because the Bylaws provide no limitations. The Bylaws also do not provide
additional parameters and guidelines.
186. The Authority of the Board of Directors (03-2357; 03-2358; 03-2359; 03-2365)
The Commission’s opinion to these questions is deferred to allow for further study and review.
187. Criticism of the CCM by an Elected Officer of the Synod (03-2361)
In a letter addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters dated June 6, 2003, an ordained
minister of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod has asked the following questions:
Question 1:

When [an officer of the Synod] in his criticism against the CCM Opinion 02-2309 failed to
quote “It should be noted, however, that when an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error
in his counsel, it is incumbent on 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 spelled out in Article XIII,” did
he give inaccurate and misleading information by this misinterpretation to the Synod?

Opinion: This question does not ask for an interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws or
resolutions and therefore an answer is not the responsibility of the CCM. It is not the responsibility of the
Commission to judge the actions or communications of a member or officer of the Synod. Procedures for
dealing with such an alleged “offensive conduct” (Article XIII of the Constitution) are set forth under
Bylaw 2.27 if it is considered that the offence calls for expulsion from membership. The use of the
Synod’s dispute resolution procedure as set forth in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws is encouraged when
disputes, disagreements or offenses arise among the members when it does not involve expulsion from
membership.
Question 2:

May [the officer], as an elected officer of the Synod, be free to criticize an opinion of the
CCM in which he withholds basic information, thus criticizing on the basis of his
138