LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 21−22, 2007, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question 2: Bylaw 3.3.5.2 states: “The Board of Directors shall have the powers and duties that
have been accorded to it by the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod, and the laws of the State of Missouri. If there is a conflict
between the “governing” documents of the Synod and “the laws of Missouri,” should
the Synod’s Board of Directors, as the Synod’s legal representative, defend the
Synod’s right to govern itself (granted under its First Amendment rights) or turn over
the governance of the Synod’s ecclesiastical and secular business to a “secular” state
government’s directives (laws)?
Opinion: See the answer to question 1.
[Note: After again referencing Bylaw 1.2.1 (c) (3) and Bylaw 3.3.5.2, as well as sections of the Missouri
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the writer referenced excerpts from section 175 of the November 2006
Board of Directors minutes:
The chair ruled that the motion was in order because it was not included in the previous action. After
discussion, the resolution was adopted as follows (Yes: 7; No: 6):
Resolved, That in consideration of the Board’s discussions of its authority held on November 16,
2006, the Board reaffirms its responsibility to abide by civil law, recognized in Bylaw 1.2.1 (c) (3).]

Question 3: (a) In addition to honoring the non-profit laws of the State of Missouri (Chapter 355),
would not the Board of Directors also have to protect the rights of the Synod as
granted in Missouri Law as found in Section 1.303, 1.307, and 1.020 (11)? (b) Even
if Missouri’s non-profit laws are considered “laws of general applicability,” would
the laws of the State of Missouri’s own Religious Freedom Restoration Act (as found
in the Missouri Code Section 1.302 [and 1.307]) serve to maintain the Synod’s
“authority and autonomy”?
Opinion: In response to part (a) of this question, the Synod has expressed clearly in Bylaw 1.2.1
that it intends to retain all authority and autonomy allowed a church under the laws and
Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri. It is the responsibility of the Board of
Directors to carry out that bylaw. Regarding part (b) of this question, again, the Commission is
not charged with the responsibility for interpretation of the laws of the state of Missouri.
[Note: The questioner here quotes in part Bylaw 3.9.2.2 of the Synod’s Bylaws: “The Commission on
Constitutional Matters shall interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions upon the written
request of a member…of the Synod.” He then notes that the “Brief Statement” was adopted in a resolution
by the Synod in 1932 and quotes from it:
Accordingly we condemn the policy of those who would have the power of the State employed “in the
interest of the Church” and who thus turn the Church into a secular dominion; as also of those who,
aiming to govern the State by the Word of God, seek to turn the State into a Church.]

Question 4: What is meant in Chapter 34 of the “Brief Statement” by the phrase “turn the Church
into a secular dominion,” as in the statement: “Accordingly, we condemn the policy
of those who would have the power of the State employed ‘in the interest of the
Church’ and who thus turn the Church into a secular dominion”?
Opinion: The full text of the referenced section of the “Brief Statement” reads:
34. Although both Church and State are ordinances of God, yet they must not be
commingled. Church and State have entirely different aims. By the Church, God would
save men, for which reason the Church is called the "mother" of believers Gal. 4:26. By
127