LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 30, 2003, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the Sola Scriptura principle when it adopts doctrinal resolutions, for the Synod in such
resolutions does not presume to establish doctrine, but it intends only to confess doctrine
taught by the Scriptures,” is a Synod Vice-President violating the constitutional and bylaw
understanding of adoption of resolutions such as 3-07A when in a Bylaw 2.27 action a
Vice-President refuses to appeal, but he makes a charge against the Dispute Resolution
Panel with violating the LCMS Constitution and sinning against God’s Word?
Question 6:

Does the Vice-President err in his public criticism of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the
Synod and its resolutions?

Question 7:

Does an LCMS Vice-President err in rejecting Resolution 3-07A and the “Lutheran
Understanding of Fellowship” (a CTCR – President A. L. Barry document) when the
LCMS 1971 Resolution 2-21 states, “The purpose of the Synod is defeated when
individuals are permitted to teach in accordance with their private views, for then there can
be no such thing as a synodical position, and a meaningful corporate confessional
commitment is impossible”?

Question 8:

How does an LCMS Vice-President err when he substitutes his own interpretation of God’s
Word and selections of Scriptures (not stated in his documents) for the common
understanding and will of the Synod through a resolution such as Resolution 3-07A and its
“Lutheran Understanding of Fellowship”?

Question 9:

Is an LCMS Vice-President’s criticism valid that the action of a District President with the
approval of the Synod’s President in honoring a provision of a synodical resolution is
divisive, that when counsel is sought from the synodical President, it is his responsibility to
“see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out” (LCMS Constitution Article XI
B 4)?

Question 10: Documentation reveals that an LCMS Vice-President has accepted political support for his
rejection of the Dispute Resolution Panel decision from members of the LCMS even while
the Vice-President refused to appeal the decision in this Bylaw 2.27 Synod action in the
fact that seventy-one pastors, one congregation, and one pastor’s wife signed a June 25,
2003 letter to the LCMS Praesidium, Secretary, Council of Presidents, Commission on
Constitutional Matters, Commission on Theology and Church Relations, and the members
of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Should the members of the Synod expect an LCMS VicePresident to disassociate himself from the signatories and reject their support of him and
their rejection of the Dispute Resolution Panel decision based on the erroneous and
fallacious arguments used by the LCMS Vice-President in his May 11 letter to the LCMS
Secretary together with the voluminous enclosures?
Opinion: In response to Questions 3 through 10, the Commission’s opinion is given in part in the opinion
and references set forth under Questions 1 and 2 above. It must also be noted, however, that it is not the
function of the Commission to judge if a member of the Synod, including any officer of the Synod, has
violated any constitutional or bylaw provisions of the Synod or has erred. Nor is it the function of the
Commission to judge the facts and correctness or validity of an officer’s behavior, actions, or
communications.
206. Role of District Board of Directors in the Configuration of Visitation Circuits (03-2368)
A pastor of the Northern Illinois District, in a letter dated August 20, 2003, asked a series of questions
regarding the responsibilities of a District board of directors in the determination of the configuration of
visitation and electoral Circuits.
150