LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 8, 1999, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

My fear is that some person or group could use bylaw 2.39c to attempt to bind the
consciences of many in Synod to a doctrinal resolution that might have passed by a
narrow majority in convention but did not have the ratifying consensus of a clear
majority of the Synod’s congregations.
The Commission’s response:
The question before the Commission is whether Bylaw 2.39, c, could be used to bind the conscience of the
Synod to a doctrinal resolution (Bylaw 1.09, b) that did not carry the weight of a doctrinal statement (Bylaw
1.09, c) requiring ratification by a two-thirds majority of the Synod’s congregations.
The Commission notes, first of all, that the language regarding doctrinal statements was inserted into the
Bylaws by the Synod’s 1975 convention. Since that time there has not been one instance in which the
procedure for adoption of a doctrinal statement, requiring passage by the Synod in convention by a twothirds majority vote and ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the Synod’s congregations within a sixmonth period, has been followed.
The Commission also observes that the question that has been submitted carries with it an inference that the
Synod can “bind the conscience” of its constituent members by the passage of either a doctrinal resolution
or a doctrinal statement. Such an inference is not true unless resolutions or statements are “in harmony with
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions” (Bylaw 1.09, a).
Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is provided for in Bylaw 1.09, d, which provides remedy
under Bylaw 2.39, c. With respect to dissent, the Bylaws make no distinction for dissenting parties between
doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal statements. The pertinent issue must always be whether the resolution or
statement is in conformity with Scripture and the Confessions.
Pending the outcome of any such appeals, Bylaw 1.09, c, 10, requires that the dissenting party “continue to
honor and uphold publicly the statement as the position of the Synod….” This corresponds to Bylaw 2.39,
c, which preserves the right of brotherly dissent, but also provides that “the members of the Synod are
expected as part of the life together within the synodical fellowship to honor and uphold the resolutions of
the Synod.”
45. Questions regarding Disagreement with a Board of Regents Decision Re Faculty Appointments
(99-2150)
The Board of Regents of one of the Synod’s universities, in a letter dated May 7, 1999, requested from the
Commission a formal response to a series of questions. The Commission responded to each of the questions
as follows:
May a regent or former regent who disagrees with a faculty appointment decision of the
Board of Regents which was made during his/her term of service pursue that dissent by
bringing charges against those responsible for recommending or making the
appointment?
The Commission responds as follows:
The last sentence of Bylaw 3.69, l, states, “Dissent to decisions made by the entities and agencies (of the
Synod) shall ordinarily be expressed within the structure of the respective entity and agency.” If the
allegation is that proper procedure as outlined in Bylaw 6.23, a, b, and c, was not followed in making the
appointment, that issue is one proper to be decided under the Synod’s dispute resolution process in Chapter