Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2011 › Page 31
LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 3-4, 2011, Page 31
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Source: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (files.lcms.org)
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
IV. "Under Article VII congregations are completely autonomous."
Especially the Apology to the Augsburg Confession is quoted in this connection. A few familiar quotations from Walther
are also usually ushered in support of this thesis. (It may be noted in passing that Dr. Walther also had some pointed things
to say about the responsibilities of congregations toward the other members of the Synod). The difficulty lies in the word
"completely," whether it is stated or, as more often, merely implied.
The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod does place great stress on the autonomy of the local congregation. Let that be
emphasized. At the same time, however, it should be stated that autonomy must be regarded in relative terms. There is no
absolute freedom this side of heaven. Every freedom that men claim for themselves is only relative and is circumscribed by
one or more considerations. In various church polities some forms of church government grant congregations more
autonomy than do others. Among the Baptists, for example, there is a high degree of congregational autonomy.
Also among us, however, it is more exact to speak of Missouri Synod polity as synodical polity rather than congregational
polity. We are primarily a federation or association of self-governing congregations. But the very word "federation" or
"association" indicates that the "self-governing" aspect has some modifications. When a congregation joins the Synod it
does give up certain rights and privileges. For example, it may no longer call in a completely unrestricted way whomever it
wishes as its pastor; it may no longer live only for itself and its own local concerns; it may no longer use textbooks which
are doctrinally unsound for the instruction of its children; it may no longer enter unilaterally into fellowship with other
church bodies; etc. As a congregation surrenders such "rights" it gains in reality great benefits.
One of these benefits is the assurance that it will have assistance in finding a pastor who will preach and teach the Word of
God in all its purity and administer the Sacraments according to Christ's institution. Indeed, this was one of the major
concerns when the Synod was organized, a concern which was felt very keenly on the congregational level among the lay
people of that day. Consequently, even though there were Lutheran colleges and seminaries available for the training of its
pastors, the Synod from the very beginning decided that it would train its own pastors. In fact, even before the Synod was
organized some of the forefathers established a log cabin in Perry County, Missouri, for this purpose.
Those rights which a congregation still retains are zealously guarded. The Commission on Constitutional Matters has ruled
more than once in favor of the maintenance of the rights of a self-governing congregation. It has held, for instance, that even
though the Synod may suspend a pastor from membership in the Synod, only the congregation can decide whether it will
depose its pastor and retain its membership in the Synod or whether it will retain its pastor and give up its synodical
membership. This is a right which continues to belong to the congregation. It must be admitted that sometimes the line of
distinction between the rights of a congregation and the rights of the Synod is somewhat blurred. Consequently, it is
wholesome for the Synod to be constantly concerned about respecting and preserving whatever autonomy is guaranteed to
its member congregations. In the process, however, the case in behalf of the autonomy of a local congregation must not be
overstated. That congregation, too, has made a solemn covenant with its fellow member congregations of the Synod.
Christians have the right to expect that fellow Christians are persons of honor and integrity who keep their word.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters submits these comments in the hope that they will help to clarify some of the
issues confronting our church, to the end that we may walk together in love as children of God who have assumed common
commitments in the service of our gracious Lord and Savior.
194