LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 25, 1997, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The Commission had also received material from the office of the District President regarding the
background for the adoption of the resolution.
After carefully considering all of the issues involved, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
In a recent telephone conference the Commission on Constitutional Matters considered your request for
an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a resolution adopted by the Eastern District convention
relating to the structure of the district. You stated that you believed the resolution had fundamentally
changed the relationship of the district to the congregations with the wording, "in partnership with the
congregations." You also asked whether a district bylaw was different than a district regulation and
whether allowing the Board of Directors to "exercise flexible responsibility with regard to them" was
not unconstitutional, raising the possibility of litigation to the Synod, the district, and the congregation.
You stated that on the basis of these concerns you believed the resolution to be unconstitutional and
should be considered null.
In response to your questions and concerns, the Commission on Constitutional Matters decided to
respond as follows:
Much depends on the understanding of the term "partnership." It should first be noted that on
the basis of Bylaw 1.05, b, districts are component parts of the Synod. If "partnership" means
what is stated in Bylaw 1.05, c, namely, that "The Synod and its component parts are designed
to assist the congregations and their members in conserving and promoting the unity of the faith
and in carrying out their mission and ministry” [emphasis added], then to describe the district as
being in "partnership" with the congregations would not be unconstitutional or contrary to the
Bylaws. If it were interpreted to mean that the district is an equal to the congregation in
determining the congregation's form of government or course of action, then it would conflict
with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, e.g., Article VII.
The resolution adopted by the Eastern District favors the first interpretation of "partnership" as the
district seeks to assist the congregations in meeting the objectives of the Synod, especially those stated
in Article 111, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9. In contrast to that relationship which exists between the Synod and its
districts, which is a directive one, the resolution nowhere indicates that a directive relationship is
intended between the district and the congregation. Consequently, to speak of the relationship as a
"partnership" in the sense defined above is not contrary to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod,
and the adopted resolution is not null on that basis.
With regard to your second question, the Commission finds it impossible to provide an answer without
knowing what is meant by the term "regulations." Furthermore, the meaning of the phrase "exercise
responsible flexibility" remains undefined. The substitution of "regulations" for Bylaws could lead to
the conclusion that "regulations" are similar to "procedures" or "ways of implementation," all of which
could be legitimate under the Bylaws and not contrary to them or the Constitution. It could be
interpreted to mean that "regulations" and "Bylaws" are meant to be identical, and the substitution was
made only because it was recognized that the use of the term "Bylaws" would be unacceptable. It would
be unconstitutional to alter the Bylaws under the guise of "exercising flexible responsibility." The
Bylaws of the Synod or the district may not be diminished by regulations.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters cannot, on the basis of the information provided, determine
that the resolution adopted by the Eastern District is unconstitutional. It has no way of identifying the
understanding of the convention at the time of its adoption. Consequently, it is also, in view of the lack
of definition, unable to declare the resolution null.