LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 26–28, 2010, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

judge of the applicability of the resolution to its local condition. However, in exercising
such judgment, a congregation must not act arbitrarily, but in accordance with the
principles of Christian love and charity. (Emphasis added)
While the word “inexpedient” had not been revised in Constitution Art. VII, it is recognized that the
Bylaws, such as Bylaw 1.7.2 above, while subordinate to the Constitution, elucidate, clarify, and “flesh
out the basic principles” (CCM Opinion Ag. 1826, Nov. 6–7, 1987), and explain the meaning of the Constitution.
To understand properly the meaning and use of “inexpedient” constitutionally and historically in the
Synod, it is important to realize that the German word ungeeignet in the 1854 Constitution was properly
translated “unsuited” into the English (cf. Moving Frontiers, p. 151). An editorial committee in 1923, not
the convention of the Synod, changed the word to “inexpedient.” The original word ungeeignet meant
“unsuited, not suited for, does not fit.” Therefore it should be noted that the use of the word “inexpedient”
in our contemporary culture appears to have a different connotation such as “not advantageous, not
profitable, inconvenient.”
It is the congregation itself, not the Synod, that may decide that a given resolution is not suited for the
congregation’s condition. The language of this article in the 1854 Constitution made this very clear when
it stated: “Should a congregation find a synodical resolution not in conformity with the Word of God or
unsuited for its circumstances, it has the right to disregard, that is, reject it” (Moving Frontiers, p. 152).
Likewise, the 1920 English text of Article VII states that no congregation shall be bound by any
resolution of the Synod “that to such congregation appears unsuited to its condition” (The Lutheran
Witness, XXXVI 20). Therefore, the congregation and not the Synod may assess the congregation’s
condition and judge the applicability of any resolution of the Synod. The congregation, not the Synod,
determines whether or not a resolution is unsuited. “The Synod, being an advisory body, recognizes the
right of a congregation to be the judge of the applicability of the resolution to its local condition” (Bylaw
1.7.2, emphasis added).
Following Dissent Procedures and Honoring and Upholding the Resolutions of the Synod
A resolution of the Synod lacks binding force when a congregation determines that the resolution “is not
in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient [unsuited] as far as the condition of
a congregation is concerned” (Article VII). If, in exercising its self-government, the congregation has
determined that a resolution of the Synod is not in accordance with God’s Word, the congregation, in
joining the Synod, has also retained the right of brotherly dissent and in exercising that dissent (to the
extent that it wishes to do so) has bound itself to the provisions set forth in the Bylaws (Bylaw section
1.8). If, in exercising its self-government, the congregation has determined that a resolution of the Synod
is not “applicable” as far as the condition of the congregation is concerned, the congregation, in joining
the Synod, has also agreed to honor and uphold the collective will of the Synod as expressed in its
Constitution, Bylaws, and convention resolutions, and pledged its active involvement and support of the
Synod’s efforts to carry out its mission and purpose (cf. Appendix II).
“Non-Doctrinal” Resolutions
CCM Opinion 99-2157 states that the “inexpedient” phrase of Article VII is “restricted to resolutions
adopted by a convention of the Synod which are non-doctrinal in nature.” Many of the concerns
submitted to the 2001, 2004, and 2007 conventions of the Synod regarding Opinion 99-2157 have focused
on this statement, including the overture to the 2007 convention which has led to this reconsideration of
the response to the second question in that opinion.