LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 23, 1997, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

congregational constitutions and bylaws when requested by the District President or Board of
Directors."
The CCM referred to in the resolution was the Committee on Constitutional Matters of the district.
The proposed amendment had been forwarded to members of the Commission who, by ballot, agreed that
the proposed amendment was acceptable and was not in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod.
4. Pacific Southwest Bylaws (Ag. 2062, A): The Bylaws of the Pacific Southwest District had previously
been reviewed. A copy of the revisions adopted by the district convention, as well as a copy of the original
Bylaws, had been forwarded to Alan Barber for review. Changes which were made were clearly identified,
and it became apparent that there were no real conflicts with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
5. Binding Nature of Synodical Resolutions (Ag. 2083, B): An elder of a congregation in Connecticut had
forwarded a letter to the Commission in which he stated that the congregation did not agree with the
position of the Synod with regard to woman suffrage and that it boldly and consistently proclaimed that
such action was contrary to the Scriptures. A letter had previously been sent pointing out that Bylaw 2.39
states very clearly that members of the Synod are expected, as part of their life together within the synodical
fellowship, to honor and uphold the resolution of the Synod. The writer stated that to this he would state a
resounding no if it violates the Word of God. As had previously been indicated, it was his position and
apparently that of the congregation that woman suffrage was a violation of the Word of God. Since the
writer was an elder in his congregation, it was not clear whether he was speaking for himself or for the
congregation. In responding to the letter, the Secretary of the Commission had written the following:
Your letter of July 30, 1997, has been received and will be shared with the Commission on
Constitutional Matters (CCM).
My personal response is two-fold.
1. Your interpretation and that of St. John, assuming they are identical, does not change the fact
that it does not reflect the official position of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod of which
St. John's is a member. As a member, the bylaws cited in a previous letter of the CCM apply to
St. John's.
2. Remaining a member of a church which has been identified as heterodox is hardly consistent
with a concern for orthodoxy. It would seem that St. John's would want to relinquish its
membership in such a heterodox church or The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, especially
since, in your view (and that of St. John's), it has been in violation of the Word of God since
July 3, 1893, and has compounded that violation by adoption of a resolution permitting woman
suffrage in 1969.
While the members of the Commission did not believe that it was necessary to send a response, it had no
objection to the proposed reply to the letter. The reply was therefore sent to Mr. LeRoi.
6. Constitutionality of District Resolutions (Ag.. 2086): A pastor had written to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, requesting an opinion on the following question:
"Is it necessary that district resolutions be in harmony and not contrary to synodical doctrine and
position?"