LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 1–2, 2013, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: Yes. See the answers to questions 1 and 2 above.
194. Revision of Congregation Constitutions and Bylaws (13-2663)
In a letter received January 22, 2013, the chairman of a district constitution review committee asked
questions regarding (1) his committee’s response to provisions for “unalterable articles” in some
congregations’ constitutions and (2) the manner in which congregations make the revisions requested by
his committee.
Question 1: Recently, a congregation asked how they are supposed to amend articles when their current
constitution says those articles are unalterable….[W]e want your opinion before proceeding.
Opinion: An early guideline for congregational constitutions provided by the Committee on
Constitutional Matters (1955) advocated the use of “unalterable and irrepealable” articles. By 1961,
however, the commission recognized that “the law considers nothing unchangeable,” adding:
“Nevertheless, unchangeable articles in matters relating to doctrine should be incorporated in the
constitution of our congregations, for these act as a check or a safe-guard against theological aberrations”
(CCM Minutes, Nov. 1, 1961). This approach continued to be advocated by the commission in the years
following, with the additional thought that if such articles were to be changed, it should be “by unanimous
consent” (Minutes, June 30, 1966).
In 1983, the Commission on Constitutional Matters altered its approach: “Instead of referring to some
articles as unalterable, the commission now favors distinguishing between the articles of a constitution by
making it much more difficult to amend certain articles by providing for a larger affirmative vote, prior
notices, perhaps at least two readings of the amendment in a meeting, etc.” (Minutes, Jan. 7, 1983). In a
January 10, 1992 opinion (Ag. 1921), the commission added further detail: “[T]he Commission has
recommended that the organization identify those articles that are of a vital nature…[and] that a large
majority, at least two-thirds and more likely 75 percent, be required to amend those specific elements”
rather than have a congregation disband and then be reconstituted in order to alter the so-called
“unalterable articles.”
In answer to question 1, therefore, the commission notes that the Synod has long acknowledged the
existence and recognized the intention of unalterable articles in congregations’ constitutions. The Synod
also has allowed that such articles can be changed. Before making changes to these articles, however, it
will be important to consult with state law regarding this issue. It will also be important to recognize that
not every article can be changed without jeopardizing membership in the Synod (see Article VI of the
Constitution of the Synod).
Question 2: Must the voters assembly pass the amendments [advocated by the district’s Constitution
Review Committee], or can the congregation’s constitution committee make the required
changes without a vote from the voters assembly?
Opinion: Changes to a congregation’s constitution (or its bylaws) advocated by the district’s Constitution
Review Committee, made after the voters assembly has already gone through the amendment process, are
nonetheless changes to be adopted according to the amendment procedure provided in the congregation’s
constitution and/or bylaws.

350