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

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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