Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2010 › Page 4
LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 7, 2010, Page 4
Source: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (files.lcms.org)
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
such judgment, a congregation must not act arbitrarily, but in accordance with the principles of Christian love
and charity. (Bylaw 1.7.2)
The Synod and its congregations recognize that disagreements exist. The Synod (and thereby also its
congregations) honors the right of all members to dissent, but requires as part of the mutual covenants of
love that such dissent occur as provided in Bylaw section 1.8, “Dissent”:
While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of the Synod are expected as part of the life together
within the fellowship of the Synod to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod. (Bylaw 1.8.1)
Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers and then
brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding expression as an
overture to the convention calling for revision or recision. While the conscience of the dissenter shall be
respected, the consciences of others, as well as the collective will of the Synod, shall also be respected. (Bylaw
1.8.2)
One fundamental aspect of these covenants, reaffirmed repeatedly in resolutions of the Synod, is the
requirement that a congregation be served only by a pastor who is a ministry of religion – ordained of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, as required by Bylaws 2.5.2 and 2.5.4:
Congregations that are members of the Synod shall call and be served only by ordained ministers who have
been admitted to their respective ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these
Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod. (Bylaw 2.5.2)
Congregations that violate these requirements and persist in such violation shall, after due admonition, forfeit
their membership in the Synod. (Bylaw 2.5.4)
The employment of a person to serve the congregation as pastor when the individual does not meet these
qualifications is a clear violation of the covenants made by members of the Synod. The district president
has a duty to admonish and reprove and, if not corrected, take appropriate disciplinary action up to and
including expulsion.
Although a congregation is not required as a condition of membership in the Synod to do so, a
congregation may in its own governing documents, deeds, agreements, or other writings establish for
itself how its future disputes—including theological disputes—will be resolved. It may even restrict or
prohibit the right of the congregation to disaffiliate from the LCMS. When a congregation has failed to
provide an alternate mechanism, by joining and remaining a member of the Synod it has chosen to
relinquish aspects of its rights of self-governance and to use the Synod’s dispute resolution processes to
avoid the need to resort to the civil courts. As indicated in Opinion 09-2573 of this Commission on
Constitutional Matters of the Synod:
It should also be noted that it is an act of congregational self-governance when a congregation elects to join the
Synod. In exercising its self-government, a congregation which voluntarily joins the Synod and subscribes to its
Constitution thereby agrees to be bound by all the provisions of the Synod’s Constitution as long as it retains its
membership in the Synod. The congregation thereby limits or subordinates the subsequent exercise of its
intrinsic right of self-government, if necessary, in all matters explicitly addressed by the Synod’s Constitution.
The specific issue of internal disputes in a congregation is an area expressly dealt with in the Synod’s
covenants of walking together. The Synod and its individual congregations have recognized that the civil
courts, using “neutral principles of law” analyses, are unable to resolve internal disputes on doctrinal
grounds, and that neither a pure “congregational” nor pure “hierarchical” Synod structure exists. The
Synod and its member congregations have attempted over the years to provide mechanisms to resolve
128