LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 30–31, 2020, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

resolution panel itself would decide the matter, including whether or not a congregation followed its own
constitution in the removal. Any opinion received by the congregation regarding the meaning of its
governing documents from any other source, within or outside of the congregation, would have no authority
and be of no bearing on the decision of the panel.
Since there appears not to be a good way to make district Bylaw 1.45 (e) fit the responsibilities and limits
given by Synod’s Bylaws to a district’s committee or commission on congregational constitutions, and
since the activity described is outside of the responsibilities given to such committees by the Constitution
and Bylaws of the Synod, the district may wish simply to eliminate its Bylaw 1.45 (e).
The district constitution committee, as established by the Bylaws of the Synod for a specific purpose—
namely, the review of congregational governing documents to determine if they meet the standard of Const.
Art. VI 5 and Bylaws 2.2.1 (b) and 2.4.1(b)—is not charged generally or otherwise with the authoritative
interpretation of the meaning of congregational governing documents. Any opinion, be it called “binding”
or “advisory,” of such a committee as to the meaning of congregational governing documents—beyond the
specific question of their harmony with the Scriptures and Confessions—is not issued within the charge of
such a committee, and district bylaws ought not suggest that such an opinion has any official weight.
Moreover, the assistance of congregations experiencing a “controversy,” such as may be involved in an
internally disputed reading of its governing documents, is assigned explicitly not to such a committee but
to the district president (Bylaw 4.4.6), as made clear in Op. 20-2939.
Question 2:

In the same vein, Op. 17-2862 and Op. 20-2939 do not clearly distinguish between an
“advisory” opinion and a “more than advisory” (or “binding” opinion). Do the same
requirements exist for both? Namely, must a congregation include in its governing
documents both the authority and those authorized to request an “advisory” opinion from
the district constitution committee? Or do those requirements apply only to a “more than
advisory” (or “binding”) opinion?

Clarification: Advice is essentially different from a binding opinion. Thus, a congregation wishing to amend
its constitution or bylaws is free to ask for advice from the district president, a district committee or
commission on congregational constitutions, or someone knowledgeable in the area, and no specific
mention needs to be made in the governing documents of the congregation. Such a request for advice is
simply a request for assistance, which a congregation is free to accept or ignore. A congregation dealing
with an internal conflict may also ask the advice and assistance of its district president without specific
reference in its governing documents, since this falls within his responsibilities, Article XII 7 and Bylaw
4.4.6. Such advice may include a district president pointing out the procedures that have been outlined in
the constitution and bylaws of a congregation and indicating that these need to be followed. Any kind of
advice so given could not be considered binding, nor would it have official standing if a dispute in a
congregation involving the congregation and one of its called ordained and commissioned ministers were
to progress to the dispute resolution processes of Bylaw section 1.10. In the Bylaw section 1.10 process,
the matter—including whether or not a congregation followed its own procedures outlined in its constitution
and bylaws—would ultimately be decided by a dispute resolution panel regardless of any advice the
congregation may have received.
63. Northwest District Bylaws and Amendment Proposed by Circuit 9 (20-2954)
By an e-mail of October 14, 2020, the Secretary of the Northwest District forwarded an overture from
Circuit 9 of his district proposing a bylaw change intended to clarify the financial disclosure incumbent
upon the district’s board of directors. The commission also obtained a copy of the Northwest District
Bylaws as presently adopted (last reviewed in Op. 18-2882), in order to review this proposal in context and
to provide the district with the commission’s customary full review.

CCM Minutes – October 30–31, 2020 – Page 48