LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 21−22, 2007, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: Again, the Commission on Constitutional Matters believes it would be unhelpful to the
Synod to comment on such a failed motion, the board majority having rejected the proposed
restructuring.
Question 7: Bylaw 1.4.1 states: “The delegate convention of the Synod is the legislative assembly
that ultimately legislates policy, program, and financial direction to carry on the
Synod’s work on behalf of and in support of the member congregations. It reserves to
itself the right to give directions to all officers and agencies of the Synod.” (a) Is
there a specific reason(s) that the Synod is structured in such a manner with no
individual officer or board having “ultimate authority or control” and all being
accountable to the Synod in convention? (b) Does the Synod’s Board of Directors
have “sole authority” in even “secular or legal matters” or should it still be subject to
the opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters and ultimately answerable
to the convention of the Synod? (c) What course of action should be employed by the
Synod if an officer and/or a board of the Synod presumes, on its own, to rewrite the
Synod’s structure and governance? And (d) What would be a more correct and
appropriate constitutional procedure if an officer or a board of the Synod wished to
change the Synod’s structure of governance?
Opinion: (a) It is not the authority or responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
to speculate as to why the Synod has chosen to structure itself in the manner it has. (b) The Synod
in convention chooses its governance model and determines whether or not the Synod’s Board of
Directors should have “sole authority” even in “secular or legal matters.” Under the Synod’s
current governance model, the Board of Directors is to be subject to the opinions of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters and ultimately answerable to the Synod in convention. (c)
No officer and/or board of the Synod is authorized to rewrite the Synod’s structure and
governance. It remains the responsibility of the President, who has supervision regarding the
doctrine and administration of all officers of the Synod, as well as all such who are employed by
the Synod, to assure that such actions are not taken. Actions taken by a board or officer of the
Synod are ultimately subject to the review of the Synod in convention, which ultimately has the
authority to declare any such action taken beyond the authority of an officer or board as null and
of no fact. (d) Amendments to the Constitution of the Synod may be made pursuant to Article
XIV and the processes described therein. Amendments to the Bylaws may be made pursuant to
Chapter VII of the Bylaws and the processes described therein.
191. Clarification of Opinion 06-2477, “District Convention Resolution re CCM
‘Guidelines’” (07-2487)
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been made aware of confusion resulting from its
Opinion 06-2477, “District Convention Resolution re CCM Guidelines.’” In the opinion, the
Commission called attention to its statement in its Guidelines for Constitutions and Bylaws of
Lutheran Congregations, “A congregation’s confessional standard must not go beyond that of the
Synod.” It also restated an earlier commission opinion (August 2003 Opinion 03-2352) that
“individual members or congregational members of the Synod may not add to or remove items
from Article II [of the Synod’s Constitution]” and that “other confessional statements,
confessions of faith, or common confessions may in fact be correct interpretations of our Lord’s
teaching and may be used for a variety of purposes, but such other confessions may not be used
as a condition for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod.” The Commission recognizes
that imprecise use of terminology has caused the confusion that has resulted from Opinion 062477 and therefore offers this clarification.

129