LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 6−8, 2004, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
St. Louis Crowne Plaza
October 6−8, 2004
9. Call to Order and Prayer
Chairman Albert Marcis called the meeting to order with all members of the Commission present for the
meeting. Raymond Hartwig provided the opening devotion. (Dan Lorenz and Walter Tesch provided
morning prayers to open the following days’ sessions.)
10. Revised Handbook (04-2405)
The Commission spent the first day of its meeting reviewing its incorporation of changes made by 2004
convention action into the revised Handbook, also reviewing the Handbook in its entirety in preparation
for publication.
11. Public Rebuke of False Doctrine (04-2401)
In a July 20, 2004 letter to the secretary of the Commission, a pastor requested a response to two
questions. The first question sought clarification of the Commission’s response to question 9 of former
Opinion 02-2309. The second requested an opinion regarding Bylaw 2.26 a (revised Handbook Bylaw
2.14.3) adopted by the 2004 convention of the Synod.
Question 1:

Does this CCM opinion [02-2309] prohibit an LCMS pastor from publicly rebuking the
false, public doctrine and practice of another LCMS pastor, the President of the Synod, or a
district president?

Opinion: The questioner specifically references the following question and response of Opinion 02-2309:
Question 9:

Under what constitutional provision, if any, may any person or group, any
board or commission, or any other entity assume de jure or de facto the
responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given
alone to the synodical President or the District President in his respective
District. In other words, may any entity that does not have the ecclesiastical
supervision, which is the sole responsibility of the synodical President or a
District President, publicly reprove or admonish another entity? If the answer
is “yes” how may the Synod avoid havoc, disorder and confusion?

Opinion: There is no constitutional provision that allows any person, group, board,
commission or other entity to assume the responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision in the
Synod that has been given to the President of the Synod under Article XI B or the District
President under Article XII 7. This includes the formal or official constitutional
responsibility to admonish or reprove members of the Synod. No one is to interfere in the
work of another.
The CCM opinion in question addresses the question of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod, not the
precise situation described in the question raised. If and when a pastor or any individual or group does not
assume the constitutional responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod, Opinion 02-2309 does