LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 10, 1960, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Rev. Dan R. Ludwig Page Four March 30, 1961

limit its application to these three doctrinal statements, itis generally agreed
that these are the only doctrinal statements which are considered as coming
within the purview of Resolution Number 9.

The President of Synod read a statement with reference to Resolution Number 9

at the meeting of the Circuit Counselors and Fiscal Conference on September 9,
1960, which had been prepared by the President and Vice Presidents of Synod.
This statement pointed out that they were aware of the fact that Resolution Number
9 needs further clarification and indicated that a memorial to this effect would be
submitted by them at the next Convention in 1962.

It was urged on our Committee that even though full opportunity for discussion had
been given with regard to the three doctrinal statements mentioned, the fact that
Resolution Number 9 did not include a safeguard against the adoption of doctrinal
statements in the future without prior presentation and discussion rendered
Resolution Number 9 unconstitutional. This is an abstract question. We think
that we can here apply a principle of law, strictly followed by the Courts, thata
judicial decision will not be rendered on an abstract question which does not
arise upon existing facts or rights. The same principle may be applied here,
since its application neither conflicts with God's Word or violates the law of
love. Unless and until a situation developes where a doctrinal statement which
has been adopted without prior submission for study affects the rights of a
member of Synod, we cannot consider the question of constitutionality on that
basis.

The Resolution of the English District claims that Resolution Number 9 in effect
amends Article II of Synod's Constitution and therefore should have been submitted
to the Committee on Constitutional Matters before presentation to the Convention
for a ruling as to its constitutionality.

In other words, it claims that Resolution Number 9 is unconstitutional because

of an alleged procedural omission. The memorandum of the President's Committee
of the English District does not emphasize this point, but since we must pass

upon the language used in the resolution itself, we shall answer the claim.

To us the language of the Article and Bylaw are clear and do not support the
claim made by the Resolution: In each case, the language refers to proposed
amendments and overtures to Synod asking for amendments, etc. Resolution
Number 9 was not submitted prior to the Convention either as an amendment
or as an overture. Indeed, it could not have been. It was simply a resolution
formulated at the Convention by Committee Number 3 as a result of consideration
of three memorials submitted prior to the convention. None of these overtures
involved or proposed any amendment to the Constitution nor did they in effect
call for any amendment to the Constitution. The wording of Resolution Number
9 shows clearly that it was intended solely to clarify the position of Synod with
reference to the status of Synod's doctrinal statements in the teaching of our
Church.

It has come to the knowledge of our Committee that Resolution Number 9 is
receiving wide discussion throughout our Church and that a number of resolutions
with reference to it may be submitted to the next Synodical Convention. As stated
above, the President and Vice President of Synod will submit an overture for the
purpose of clarifying the resolution. The first English District resolution itself
appeals to Synod to declare Resolution Number 9 unconstitutional. Its request