LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 6, 1985, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

2. If not, is the denial grounds for excommunication?
3. What further action do you recommend at this time?
Questions were posed because a communicant member had stated her disagreement with the doctrinal
standards of the congregation which conform to the doctrinal standards of the Synod, but had asked to be
retained as a communicant member of the congregation. The congregation had not sustained the
recommendation of the elders that the member be excommunicated.
After considering the matter, the Commission asked the Secretary to provide a response which stated that
the Commission recognizes this situation as essentially a pastoral problem. In reply to each of the
questions, it was pointed out that self-exclusion on the basis of denial of doctrinal standards is internally
inconsistent. Self-exclusion would mean that the communicant member has by personal request or by
nonparticipation made it clear that there is no desire to be considered any longer a part of the
congregation. Denial of doctrinal standards does not necessarily, therefore, eliminate a person from
communicant membership. It was further noted that the denial of doctrinal standards is not a basis for
excommunication. Persistent adherence to false doctrine, refusal to be instructed, and propagation of false
doctrine could provide a basis for such action. The Commission recommended that because of the
doctrinal considerations involved which are not within the province of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters, the congregation and pastor might wish to contact the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations for possible guidance.
150. Rights of Canadian Congregations (Ag. 1756): The Commission had received a request from Pastor
Huras in Canada regarding the rights of congregations who might not wish to join Lutheran Church-Canada if and when it is formed. The questions which were asked were based on a document which is
presently being formulated as a guide for procedures to be followed in the formation of Lutheran ChurchCanada.
In response, the Commission noted that pastors and congregations cannot simply be declared to be
independent, in effect, removing them from the roster of the Synod without adequate grounds for doing
so. It further noted that it did not believe that it was in a position to answer the questions posed since the
document is presently in the process of formation, and a response to the questions would therefore be
premature. When the final document is prepared, the Commission stated its willingness to review it and to
respond to questions which were posed at that time. The Commission further noted that a lack of response
to the questions at this time should not be interpreted to mean that the questions were without merit.
151. Articles of Incorporation--Concordia Historical Institute (Ag. 1759): Concordia Historical Institute
had revised its Constitution and Bylaws, incorporating the Articles of Incorporation and Constitution into
a single document. After review the Commission approved the Constitution and Bylaws as not being in
conflict with the Bylaws of the Synod.
152. Constitutionality of Appeals Procedure -- Paul Welk (Ag. 1761): In the hearing of an appeals case, a
party to the case, Paul Welk, had stated that the Commission on Appeals had requested the appearance of
President Bohlmann at a hearing to provide further information. He stated that Dr. Bohlmann was his
accuser, had ordered his suspension, and was therefore not a neutral party. The Commission noted that
facts are being stated which are in dispute. The major point, however, is that in accordance with Bylaw
8.51, the Commission
cannot respond to the request since no opinion has been requested by the Commission on Adjudication or
the Commission on Appeals. It was further understood that the request may involve a moot point since
Dr. Bohlmann did not appear before the Commission on Appeals.