LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 18–20, 2007, Page 12

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

membership on the faculty until such time as they receive an initial level full-time appointment. In view
of their nonvoting status, they are not eligible to serve on faculty committees that certify church worker
students for the roster of the Synod under Bylaw section 2.7.
201. Article II of Model Constitution and Bylaws (07-2492)
A pastor of the Synod in an April 9, 2007 letter raised an issue regarding paragraph 5.4.2 of the
Commission’s Guidelines for Constitutions and Bylaws of Lutheran Congregations pertaining to
standards for excommunication, i.e., whether a unanimous vote of a congregation is required for an
excommunication. The Commission agreed to request input from the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations before responding. A letter to the CTCR will be drafted that will include citations from
initial studies that suggest that a unanimous vote is not required.
202. Interpretation of Constitution Art. VI (07-2493)
A pastor of the Synod in a March 6, 2007 E-mailed letter to the Secretary of the Synod, referenced a
paragraph in the October, 2006 “Report and Recommendations to the President of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod Upon Completion of Formal Discussions with the American Association of
Lutheran Churches” which provided a summary of a presentation by First Vice-President William
Diekelman during fellowship discussions: “He called particular attention to Article VI 1 of the LCMS
Constitution (renunciation of unionism and syncretism) as relative to a time when the Synod was small
and community-located, and Article III 6 & 7 (varieties of resources and practices) as becoming ever
more important as the landscape of the Synod changes.” The pastor requested an opinion from the
Commission regarding whether the points made in the paragraph reflect a correct understanding of the
Constitution of the Synod.
Question:

Is Article VI 2 to be understood “relative to a time when the Synod was small and
community-located” and is Article III 6 & 7 “more important as the landscape of the Synod
changes”? If Rev. Diekelman’s interpretation of the Constitution is not a correct one, and the
recommendation to the President of the LCMS is based on the AALC representatives’
agreement with such false understanding, is at least some of the apparent agreement between
the LCMS and the AALC undermined?

Opinion: The questioner has asked for an interpretation of a summary of an oral statement contained in a
written report to the President of the Synod (2007 Convention Workbook, pp. 416–419). It is the
responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod. The Bylaws give responsibility for recommending approval of altar and pulpit
fellowship to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (Bylaw 3.9.6.2.2 [b]), as has occurred
(CTCR Report, 2007 Convention Workbook, pp. 71–72; Ov. 3-01, Workbook, p. 147; Res. 3-01, Today’s
Business, pp. 69–70).
Without the benefit of being present at the multiple meetings between representatives of the Synod and
the American Association of Lutheran Churches, the Commission cannot comment on the
“understandings” reached between these church bodies. The Commission on Theology and Church
Relations bears that responsibility and has submitted a recommendation for altar and pulpit fellowship as
provided in Bylaw 3.9.6.2.2.
203. Calling a Special Convention of the Synod (07-2494)
During floor committee meetings for the 2007 convention of the Synod, a member of the Synod serving
on a floor committee submitted the following question regarding the calling of special conventions of the
Synod.
148