LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 17, 2005, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

action of the congregation or advise the congregation to review and revise its decision. If
the congregation does not revise its decision, the other congregations of the Synod shall
not be required to respect this decision, and the district involved shall take action with
respect to the congregation as it may deem appropriate.
Bylaw 1.10.7.4 (d) (2004 Handbook, p. 42) states: “Subject to request for review or appeal (contemplated
or pending), the final decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel shall (1) be binding upon the parties to that
dispute;…” While a congregation retains its right of self-governance, its rejection of a Dispute Resolution
Panel decision violates the covenants reflected in the dispute resolution process itself. Whether that action
of the congregation warrants further action by the Synod is left to the discretion of the district as reflected
in Bylaw 1.10.9.
Question 3:

If Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9) does not allow congregations to disagree with the
recommendations of a Dispute Resolution Panel without threat to such congregations’
membership in the Synod, what is the meaning and purpose of Bylaw 8.11?

Opinion: Bylaw 1.10.9 reaffirms the independence of the individual congregation. The Synod in its 2001
convention made that independence even more clear by adding to Article VII of the Constitution a second
provision: “2. Membership of a congregation in the Synod gives the Synod no equity in the property of
the congregation.” Should a congregation determine that it wishes to terminate its voluntary association
with the Synod, or should the Synod, through appropriate process, determine that the congregation no
longer meets the qualifications for membership, the congregation’s independence and property rights are
retained, even though the relationship is severed. The language of Bylaw 1.10.9 reflects the range of
disagreements which can develop despite our attempts to walk together, and gives discretion to the
districts to evaluate a congregation’s actions in rejecting a Dispute Resolution Panel decision, and to
consider whether such rejection justifies action to address and heal the breach, up to and including an
action to terminate membership.
This issue is not new to this Commission’s consideration. For example, in a 1993 opinion involving
questions arising out of an action for excommunication, the Commission previously wrote (Ag. 1972):
…it should be noted that while the congregation is autonomous, by its membership in the
Synod it has covenanted with others in regard to doctrine and practice. It is pledged by its
membership in the Synod to honor and uphold the doctrinal position and the resolutions
of the Synod. It is for this reason that Bylaw 8.11 states that the “…Dispute Resolution
Panel may review the decision of the congregation according to the Holy Scripture and
shall either uphold the action of the congregation or advise the congregation to review
and revise its decision.” In other words, if it determines that the basis for the action was
contrary to Holy Scripture, it may advise the congregation to take action as indicated.
Because it is autonomous, the congregation need not do so. However, if it does not, the
remainder of the bylaw applies as it states, “If the congregation does not revise its
decision, the other congregations of the Synod shall not be required to respect this
decision, and the district involved shall take action with respect to the congregation as it
may deem appropriate.”
This issue was also addressed in a 1994 opinion inquiring as to a congregation’s right to discharge a
pastor. The Commission opined in Ag. 1980:
Congregational autonomy does include the authority of a congregation to dismiss its
pastor for any reason. However, as noted previously, if it wishes to remain a member of
the Synod, that autonomy is limited. The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
18