LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 21–22, 2025, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The memorial is approved for presentation to the district convention. The district is thanked for this
submission and reminded to convey, for the commission’s files, a clean copy of its bylaws as finally adopted
by the convention.
The commission also briefly reviewed the recent history of approval of the district’s bylaws in general. The
commission notes with respect to Bylaw 1.45 (e) that the issue noted in Op. 20-2939 and 17-2862 remains
unaddressed. With regard to this language, we wrote and still maintain (Op. 20-2939):
In essence the commission indicated that unless, and only if, there were a specific statement to that
effect in the constitution or bylaws of the congregation, authorizing a request to be made of the
district Constitution Committee or some other outside source to give an interpretation of its
constitution and bylaws and agreeing to abide by said decision, the district Constitution Committee
does not have the authority to render a binding decision interpreting the constitution or bylaws of
a congregation. In addition, the wording of the congregation’s constitution and bylaws would have
to specify who is authorized to request this opinion on behalf of the congregation. Theoretically,
with these provisions in place in its constitution and bylaws, a congregation could bind itself to
abide to the interpretation of the district Constitution Committee or some other outside source. Yet,
even in this case, the opinion rendered would be devoid of authority, as far as Synod itself is
concerned, as the rendering of such opinions is not a function assigned to the district Constitution
Committee.
The present wording of district Bylaw 1.45 (e) does not accurately reflect this opinion of the
commission and is not consistent with the language suggested to the district in the Synod
Commission on Constitutional Matters review of its bylaw in Op. 17-2862. It does not specify that
this authority for the congregation to request a binding opinion from the district Constitution
Committee or other outside source must be specifically included in the constitution and bylaws of
the congregation itself. Regrettably, the commission in Op. 17-2862A did not object to the language
adopted by the district; that language today is found to have been insufficient, and the approval
granted in Op. 17-2862A is hereby overruled.
As district Bylaw 1.45 (e) currently stands, it is in violation of Const. Art. VII and Bylaws 2.2.1,
2.4.1, and 4.4.6, and cannot be used.
And we wrote and still maintain (Op. 20-2939A):
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.
The commission also reiterates its observation from Op. 22-2990, requesting a response: “The commission
also notes that it believes the district [in June 2018] to have adopted articles compliant with Bylaw 1.5.3.6
CCM Minutes – March 21–22, 2025 – Page 71