LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 10, 2017, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

“The right of a congregation to exercise the right of expediency (Bylaw 1.09b [2016 Bylaw
1.7.2]) applies only to resolutions of the Synod and not to the Constitution and Bylaws” (1969
Res. 5-23 [Proceedings, pp. 119–20]).
The here-quoted preface of the 1969 Res 5-23 applied this principle specifically to Article XIII of the
Constitution, as well as to bylaws of the Synod. 1 These, the preface states, “are binding on every member
of the Synod, and refusal to comply with the rules and regulations of the Synod constitutes divisive and
unbrotherly conduct which destroys the very concept of the Synod as a ‘walking together.’ The right of a
congregation to exercise the right of expediency (Bylaw 1.09b [2016 Bylaw 1.7.2]) applies only to
resolutions of the Synod and not to the Constitution and Bylaws” [emphasis added].” 2 Self-evidently, to
allow each individual congregation to determine to which of the standards of Synod membership it would
conform as “expedient to its condition” would render those standards meaningless, frustrating the collective
will of the congregations to assemble and maintain the Synod under such standards. This understanding is
consistently reinforced in the Bylaws of the Constitution of the Synod:
•
•

•

Bylaw 1.7.1: “The Constitution, Bylaws, and all other rules and regulations of the Synod
apply to all congregational and individual members of the Synod.”
Bylaw 1.3.4: “Congregations together establish the requirements of membership in the Synod
(Constitution Art. VI). In joining the Synod, congregations and other members obligate
themselves to fulfill such requirements and to diligently and earnestly promote the purposes
of the Synod by word and deed.”
Bylaw 1.3.4.1: “Members agree to uphold the confessional position of the Synod
(Constitution Art. II) and to assist in carrying out the objectives of the Synod (Constitution
Art. III), which are objectives of the members themselves. While congregations of the Synod
are self-governing (Constitution Art. VII), they, and also individual members, commit
themselves as members of the Synod to act in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod under which they have agreed to live and work together and which the
congregations alone have the authority to adopt or amend through conventions.”

1

1969 Res. 5-23 is a resolution of particular interpretive force and significance. In it, the convention took up previous
opinions by the Commission on Constitutional Matters, rendered June 12, 1967, and June 14, 1968. It ratified these
opinions, elaborating a specific constitutional rationale, and incorporated the “basic constitutional requirements
[already demonstrated by the opinions] in clear and unmistakable words also in the Bylaws.” By adoption of this
resolution, the convention interpreted the Constitution with its “unique and final interpretive power” (CCM Op. 162791).
The June 14, 1968 CCM opinion (addressed to President Harms) reads:
You have addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters the question: Is it permissible under the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod for a member congregation to have as its pastor a man who is not a
member of the Synod? After thorough study of the Constitution and Bylaws the Commission on
Constitutional Matters has come to the conclusion that this is not permissible and that such a congregation
cannot remain a member of the Synod or exercise any rights and privileges of membership.

2

1969 Res. 5-23 (Proceedings, p. 120). This passage paraphrases the June 12, 1967 CCM opinion noted above (later
cited in CCM Op. 02-2307, October 21–22, 2002), which reads:
The Commission on Constitutional Matters holds that Article XIII, 1 of the Constitution and paragraph
1.05 of the Bylaws of the Synod are binding on every member of the Synod. Refusal to comply with these
provisions as well as active promotion of non-compliance constitute divisive and unbrotherly conduct
which destroys the very concept of the Synod as ‘a walking together.’ Such conduct, if persisted in despite
repeated admonition, is a breach not only of synodical fellowship but of the unity which prevails between
Christians and which expresses itself in love. If all efforts at admonition fail, a member persisting in such
conduct shall be subject to suspension and to eventual expulsion.

CCM Minutes – July 10, 2017 – Page 54