LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 26–28, 2010, Page 16

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

and reaffirmed in conventions which followed.” This opinion was reaffirmed by a later
commission in a September 14, 1999 opinion (99-2160), which stated in part:
It is the opinion of the commission that until the Synod clearly indicates that the term,
“spiritual head,” does not involve the president of the institution in the distinctive
functions of the pastoral office and/or exercising authority over men in spiritual matters,
its decision is consistent with the position adopted by previous conventions.
Noting these earlier commission opinions, and noting that a president of an educational
institution continues to “serve as the spiritual, academic, and administrative head of the
institution” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7), remains “responsible for the provision of spiritual care and
nurture for every student” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7 [h]), and “shall carefully watch over the spiritual
welfare…of the students and in general exercise such Christian discipline, instruction, and
supervision as may be expected at a Christian educational institution” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7 [i]), the
commission concludes that it continues to be necessary for a university president to be male.
It is the opinion of the commission that the proposed draft does satisfy the concerns previously articulated
by the commission, amending Bylaw 3.8.3.7 in a manner that is consistent with the Handbook of the
Synod, so long as care is also taken, perhaps delegated to the Commission on Constitutional Matters as it
prepares the 2010 edition of the Handbook, to locate and make changes to any other bylaws with
pronouns referring to the office of college or university president that are not gender-neutral (as in Bylaw
3.8.3.7.1 [b]).
161. Questions re District Overtures to Synod Conventions (10-2577)
With a February 27, 2010 e-mailed letter, the President of the Synod submitted a series of questions
related to overtures and memorials received for consideration by the 2010 convention. After reviewing
pertinent constitutional and bylaw passages, he requested the following opinions.
Question 1: May a district of the Synod adopt a resolution rejecting a resolution of the Synod? What
would be the effect of such a resolution?
Opinion: A district may not adopt a resolution rejecting a resolution of the Synod, and any attempt to do
so should be considered null and void. This issue has been touched on in a number of prior CCM
opinions. In Opinion 00-2212, the CCM addressed the question, “Since a district of the Synod is in reality
‘Synod in that place,’ may a district take official action to file an expression of dissent to a doctrine or
practice of the Synod? Members of the Synod have the privilege of doing so, but a district is not a
member of the Synod.” The commission responded as follows:
Bylaw 2.39 c [2007 Bylaw section 1.8] describes the procedure for dissent to doctrinal
resolutions of the Synod by members of the Synod. Districts are not members of the Synod
but are divisions of the Synod, “the geographical boundaries of which are determined by the
Synod and altered by it according to circumstances” (Article XII 1). “The Synod establishes
districts in order more effectively to achieve its [objectives] and carry on its activities”
(Bylaw 4.01 [2007 Bylaw 4.1.1]). As such, districts “as component parts of the Synod are
obligated to carry out the resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.05 f [2007 Bylaw 1.3.6]). An
official action by a district, therefore, to file an expression of dissent to the Synod regarding a
doctrine taught and practiced by the Synod is out of order and, therefore, null and void.
This issue was most recently and even more directly addressed in CCM Opinion 09-2556, which
discussed the nature of districts and indicated, in part: