LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 21−22, 2007, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

Under Article VIII, line 404, the district may wish to give further thought to who it is
that actually extends calls to district workers in the context of our Synod’s understanding
of the call. The congregations of a district collectively are the calling body. District
boards of directors may be authorized to act on behalf of the congregations, but it is the
congregations that actually extend such calls to the workers.

•

For the sake of consistency and good order, the district is encouraged to approximate as
closely as possible in its official documents the terminology and rules of grammar,
especially capitalization, that the Synod uses in its Handbook.

190. Synod Governance Issues (07-2486)
In a letter received January 5, 2007, a pastor of the Synod asked a series of questions regarding
Synod governance issues. The first specifically relate to Bylaw 1.2.1 (c) (3), which states: “The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, in referencing the laws of the State of Missouri in these
Bylaws and in the Synod’s Articles of Incorporation, intends to acknowledge its responsibility to
be subject to civil authority. In all such references, however, the Synod intends to retain all
authority and autonomy allowed a church under the laws and Constitution of the United States
and the State of Missouri.”
[Note: Along with his questions the pastor provided a background memorandum regarding constitutional 1st
Amendment issues, referencing quotations from various United States Supreme Court opinions as well as
State of Missouri Nonprofit Corporation Law Section 355.316 (2).]

Question 1: (a) If the Synod wishes “to retain all authority and autonomy allowed a church”
under various laws, what laws should the Synod more closely observe, especially if
there is a conflict between the laws and Constitution of the U.S. granting “free
exercise” and the non-profit laws of the State of Missouri? (b) What then takes
greater priority for the Synod’s Board of Directors to follow? The non-profit laws of
the State of Missouri, or the “free exercise” rights as ruled by the U.S. Supreme
Court in order “to retain all authority and autonomy allowed a church under the laws
and Constitution of the United States”?
Opinion: The role and responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters under Bylaw
3.9.2.2 includes the interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. The
Commission does not have the authority to interpret the laws and Constitution of the United
States or the State of Missouri. The Commission does certainly attempt, however, to be cognizant
of that constitution and those laws. For example, where two reasonable interpretations of a
resolution of the Synod would be possible, one of which would clearly violate state or federal law
and one of which would not, a fundamental rule of interpretation that is assumed is that the Synod
intended to follow a lawful course of conduct rather than one which is unlawful.
In fulfilling its specific service function to the Synod, the Board of Directors is required to follow
the directions of the Synod in convention. Presumably in doing so, to the extent some challenge
whether actions of the Synod are contrary to Missouri state law, the Board of Directors will
inquire, through legal counsel, whether or not the Synod can legitimately and in good faith urge
that the rights granted under the state and federal constitution supersede or preempt an apparent
conflict with non-profit laws of the State of Missouri. To the extent considered necessary or
appropriate, the board may choose to interact with secular authorities to assure that the State of
Missouri recognizes the validity of the governance model chosen by the Synod.

126