LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 22-23, 1970, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Synod. We are not aware of a similar objective standard with respect to music or other characteristics of
worship materials (if they are considered as literature) which has been approved by the Synod.
Obviously, all such materials must pass doctrinal review, i.e., be in agreement with the Scripture and
the Lutheran Confessions. However, it is not at all certain that in Bylaw 3.928 the Commission on
Worship has been delegated that function. Doctrinal review is dealt with elsewhere in the Bylaws and
does not identify the Commission on Worship as having that function for worship materials.
Further, it should be noted that with respect to decisions of doctrinal reviewers there are provisions for
appeal. The same is true of decisions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. None, however, are
provided for decisions of the Commission on Worship with respect to worship materials unless one
considers the possibility of such appeal directly to the President of the Synod.
In view of the above, it is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that what is
envisioned in the term "clear" is not arbitrary or unilateral action on the part of the Commission on
Worship. What is rather envisioned is a meeting with the unit preparing the material with the goal of
resolving differences of opinion with regard to matters other than doctrinal issues. Unless there are
specific, objective standards approved by the Synod for these other issues, this agreement might involve
or require compromise.
56. Herman Otten Eligibility (Ag. 2039) : At the 1995 synodical convention it had been determined that a
special committee should study the materials and issues pertinent to the Herman Otten case, attempt by
God's grace to reach a solution which would promote peace and harmony in the Synod, report its findings
and recommendations to the President of the Synod, who would be respectfully directed to take appropriate
action to conclude this matter in accordance with the Bylaws of the Synod. Any solution achieved was to be
viewed as unique to this case without any precedential value.
The committee had been constituted and had met on several occasions. As a result of its discussions, it
determined to forward a number of questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters for
consideration. The chairman of the committee, Dr. James Kalthoff, proposed two questions from the
committee and one from himself. These questions were as follows:
1) According to the new bylaws regarding entering the pastoral ministry by colloquy, is Herman Otten
eligible to apply and seek to go this route for certification? (Bylaws 6.87-6.103)
2) Does Resolution 7-18A of the 1995 synodical convention in effect rescind the 1965 synodical
convention Resolution 5-30, which said that "the case of Herman Otten is closed"? If Resolution 530 is not rescinded, would a future convention have to declare it to be so in order for the convention
or anyone else to do anything regarding the Herman Otten case until that occurs? Is Resolution 718A in conflict with Resolution 5-30 of the 1965 synodical convention which declared the Herman
Otten case closed?
3) Can we (the Special Committee) appropriately suggest, as an aid to possible discussions between
Herman Otten and the seminary, that one trained in the synodical dispute resolution process be used
as a moderator?
Responding to these questions, the Commission offered the following opinion to be included in the letter to
the special committee:
Before proceeding with a response to your questions, the Commission wishes to emphasize that
Resolution 7-18A stated emphatically that the matter dealt with is to be concluded "in accordance with
the Bylaws of the Synod." The Commission can only respond by reference to them even though the