LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 30, 2003, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

affairs of the Synod and, as discussed in Opinion 02-2259, the general duty to see that the Constitution
and Bylaws of the Synod are observed, as directed in 2001 convention Resolution 7-03C. As further
discussed in the response to Question 2 of Opinion 02-2259, however, the President is the chief
ecclesiastical officer of the Synod, and the Board of Directors may not restrict the ecclesiastical functions
of the President and the means chosen by him to carry out those functions within the resources available
to him. It is expected that the Board of Directors, as well as all members of the Synod, will provide such
constructive input as they may have to assist the President in the performance of his office.
204. Concordia Historical Institute Bylaw Amendments Review (03-2366)
The Director of Concordia Historical Institute, in a letter received September 23, 2003, provided to the
Commission a series of amendments to the Bylaws of Concordia Historical Institute adopted by its Board
of Governors at its September 27, 2002 and August 21, 2003 meetings. After review as required by
Bylaw 3.905 f, the Commission reports that they are in harmony with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod and thanks the Board of Governors for its cooperation.
205. Responsibilities and Expectations of Officers of the Synod (03-2367)
In a letter received August 18, 2003, an ordained minister of the Synod asked a series of questions
regarding the responsibilities of a Vice-President of the Synod.
Question 1:

May an LCMS Vice-President reject the LCMS 2001 convention Resolution 3-07A by
naming it a “human opinion” and “human document” and claiming that a Synod resolution
contradicts the Word of God and the constitutional requirement of basing all actions on the
Word of God instead of pursuing Bylaw 2.39 c?

Question 2:

May an LCMS Vice-President in his official position as adjudicator of a Bylaw 2.27 action
formally reject a synodical resolution (3-07A) while failing to state his rejection of a
synodical resolution by pursuing Bylaw 2.39 c?

Opinion: Although the 2001 synodical convention Resolution 3-07A is a resolution de jure humano, the
Synod, which has “the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions and statements” (Bylaw 1.09 a), regards it as
being “in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions” (Resolution 3-07A, 2001 Convention
Proceedings, p. 137). An LCMS Vice-President or any officer of the Synod in the performance of their
official duties may not reject any resolution of the Synod. As a member of the Synod, the officer must
follow the avenues of dissent as set forth in Bylaw 2.39 c and abide by the provisions of Bylaw 1.09.
Question 3:

Is an LCMS Vice-President correct in condemning Resolution 3-07A as against the
Scriptures and that the CCM opinion is a sin against God’s Word and that the LCMS
Dispute Resolution Panel decision is a sin while failing to obey the Synod’s route of
dissent?

Question 4:

In view of the responsibilities of an LCMS Vice-President to obey the LCMS Constitution
and Bylaws and LCMS resolutions and to use the LCMS mechanisms available to reject
LCMS resolutions, how does an LCMS Vice-President err when he writes to the LCMS
Secretary, “I will not appeal the decision,” and does not pursue his opportunity to object to
the Dispute Resolution Panel decision under Bylaw 2.27, but then he appeals to the
political arena (“The Schulz Report of Benke-Yankee Stadium”)?

Question 5:

In view of the LCMS 1971 Resolution 2-21 which states, “The Synod is irrevocably
committed to the Sola Scriptura principle. The Synod maintains that it is not a violation of
149