LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 17, 2000, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

A pastor of the Synod, in a letter dated May 30, 2000, submitted two series of questions pertaining to the
interpretation of Bylaws 2.39 and 2.27 respectively. Because several of the questions in the first series
invite the Commission to speculate about possible circumstances in which the bylaw might apply, which
the Commission cannot do, those questions have been edited to allow for a response to the basic issues
raised by the queries, as follows:
Question 1:

“What is the difference between ‘brotherly dissent’ on a matter of doctrine according to
bylaw 2.39 and false doctrine?”

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the LCMS reflect the ongoing concern of its members to
faithfully believe, teach, and confess “the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written
Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and practice” (Art. II, 1) and “all the Symbolical Books
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of
God….” (Art. II, 2).
Common confession of faith unites the members of Synod in a Word and Sacrament ministry. The Synod
has also recognized the need to engage in ongoing theological discussion. Bylaw 2.39 provides a
framework under which such discussion may take place. Bylaw 2.39, a, begins by stating the expectation
that the Constitution, Bylaws, and all other rules and regulations of the Synod apply to “all congregational
and individual members of the Synod.” Bylaw 2.39, b, stipulates that the Synod expects every member
congregation to respect its resolutions and “to consider them of binding force if they are in accordance
with the Word of God….” This subsection also contains a proviso that Synod is “an advisory body” and
recognizes the right of the congregation to be the judge of the applicability of the resolution to its local
condition.
The tension between doctrinal unity and the expression of dissent is discussed in Bylaw 2.39, c.
“Brotherly dissent” regarding matters of doctrine must follow a path prescribed by the bylaw. Dissent is
to be “expressed first within the fellowship of peers.” It must then be “brought to the attention of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding expression as an overture to the
convention calling for revision or recision.”
This provision allows a member of Synod to express dissent following a prescribed process intended to
bring about resolution of the issue. If a member of Synod refused to follow the procedure, this could,
depending upon the doctrinal issue involved, leave the member open to charges of false doctrine. A
member dissenting under Bylaw 2.39 must follow the doctrine of the Synod and its doctrinal resolutions
pending the outcome of the process. If a member of Synod undertook dissent under Bylaw 2.39, but did
not honor and uphold the Synod’s doctrinal positions during the process, that member could be subject to
a charge of false doctrine. A member who dissents according to the procedures outlined in Bylaw 2.39
may not be charged with false doctrine while such procedures are being followed.
Question 2:

“Can a member of the Synod defend himself/herself against the charge of false doctrine
merely by saying, ‘I dissent according to Bylaw 2.39?’”

Opinion: Answered above.
Question 3:

“May a District President or the Praesidium of the Synod suspend a member of the Synod
according to Bylaw 2.27 who is expressing dissent according to Bylaw 2.39?”

Opinion: A member may be suspended if that member is expressing doctrinal dissent without abiding by
the provisions of Bylaw 2.39, c.

179