LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 13, 2003, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Conference Call Meeting
December 13, 2003

219. Call to Order
Chairman Walter Tesch called the meeting to order and asked Raymond Hartwig to open the meeting
with prayer. All members of the Commission were present for the meeting.
220. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the October 22 and December 6, 2003 meetings of the Commission were reviewed and
approved.
221. Joint Meeting with Representatives of the Board of Directors
Chairman Tesch briefly described plans for the Commission’s joint meeting with the President of the
Synod and representatives of the Board of Directors in early January, also reminding Commission
members of plans to meet the evening before the joint meeting. He called attention to a draft of a letter he
intends to mail to the chairman of the Board of Directors requesting response to a number of questions
prompted by recent Board actions.
222. Reconsideration of Opinions re Ecclesiastical Supervision (03-2338, 03-2338A, 03-2338C)
In a letter received February 27, 2003, a pastor of the Synod encouraged the Commission to reconsider its
decision regarding “Ecclesiastical Supervision.” The stated reason for encouraging the reconsideration
was that for him the decision leaves the impression that no one can be held responsible for his actions
when he has received prior permission from his ecclesiastical supervisor, that everyone must give an
account of his actions before the throne of God and that no one can claim as an excuse that an
ecclesiastical supervisor condoned his action. He further asked these questions: “Should not the Scriptures
supersede any interpretation of the Bylaws? Is a decision of the CCM valid when it contradicts the Word
of God? Can the church allow them (ecclesiastical supervisors) to be considered above accountability?
Can those who follow approval by their ecclesiastical supervisor claim this same immunity from
challenge to their action?”
Secondly, in a letter received March 1, 2003, a pastor of the Synod encouraged the Commission to
reconsider its January 20-21, 2003 decisions regarding “Consequences of Actions Taken Upon Approval
of Ecclesiastical Supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320) and all others in any way pertaining to ecclesiastical
supervisors. He stated: “In some cases, I fear ecclesiastical supervision may even exceed the boundaries
of the Holy Scriptures.”
Thirdly, in a letter received April 7, 2003, a voters assembly of a member congregation of the Synod
offered “An Appeal to the [Commission] on Constitutional Matters of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod to Declare Invalid Opinions 02-2296; 02-2320; and 02-2309,” expressing concern that these
opinions leave the supervised member or an officer of the Synod free from responsibility or
accountability and thereby change the public nature of the Synod. The congregation stated, “In this way
the Synod, then, can hold no individual under such supervision accountable.”