LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 182

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

182

adopt changes to invalidate constitutionally this long-standing and recently-incorporated activity.
8. Present objectives 2 and 9 appear to root in a common, very general
objective of the pre-1917, German constitution (Chapter IV 3: “Common
protection and extension of the church”). The latter objective 9 has been
understood most often to relate to duties and rights of pastors and congregations vis-à-vis one another and the Synod (1975 Res. 9-07; 1977 Res.
5-01; 2001 Res. 2-03A; 2010 Res. 5-01A; “Opinion on Dissenting Groups
and Activities,” CCM Minutes, Oct. 30–31, 1969 [ref. Op. 03-2328, Minutes, Apr. 29, 2003; Op. 05-2443, Oct. 16–18, 2005; Op. 11-2589, Sept.
3–4, 2011]; CCM Ag. 1879; Minutes, Dec. 14, 1989; Ag. 1901, Aug. 30,
1990; Ag. 2115 [with regard to RSOs], Aug. 24, 1998; Op. 02-2280, Oct. 2,
2022; Op. 02-2309, Jan. 20–21, 2003; Op. 03-2338 [incl. A and C], Dec.
13, 2003; Op. 09-2570, Jan. 23–24, 2010; Op. 10-2581, Sept. 7, 2010; Op.
13-2669, May 16–17, 2013; Op. 22-2980, May 2, 2022; Standard Operating
Procedures Manuals for dispute resolution and expulsion), once with reference to procedural rights within the Synod under worker benefit plans (1967
Res. 4-46). It presumably also extends but does not seem explicitly to have
been applied in interpretation to the Synod’s efforts (e.g., Bylaw 1.2.1 [f][2]
to “retain” on behalf of itself and its membership “all authority and autonomy allowed a church under the laws and Constitution of the United States
and the State of Missouri.” Whether and to what extent the protection and
rights describe have to do with congregational property or its enjoyment,
other than in a free exercise sense, the commission does not here opine.
9. Although this activity is proposed by Concordia Plan Services, the
constitutional basis for its core work of administering the Concordia Plans
is clear (Const. Art. III 10) but, just as clearly, inapplicable to the instant
question. The commission notes that work related to worker benefit plans
was carried out before the 1979 addition of the relevant (10th) objective.
10. While Bylaws 3.7.1.1–2 do not provide for this function, neither do
they exclude delegation of new functions to CPS or its subordinate agency
by the Synod Board of Directors. Further, there is some analogy to the assignment of this function, even if not exact, in the “administration services”
conceived under Bylaw 3.7.1.2 and the Board of Directors’ general authority to establish limits for CPS’ administration of plans on behalf of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.7.1.4).

Member of the Synod as “Journalist” (24-3040)
Minutes of March 21–22, 2025
A district president of the Synod, by an email of Nov. 18, requested
an opinion on the following:
Question:

Does a rostered minister of the Synod who regards
him/herself a journalist relinquish the responsibilities outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution relative
to Matthew 18?

Opinion: That the “rostered minister” (individual member of the
Synod) “regards him/herself as a journalist” has no bearing on the
member’s responsibilities under the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod.
The Bylaws of the Synod mention duties of members relative to
Matthew 18 in Bylaws 1.10.1–1.10.1.6, in other passages dealing
with disputes among Synod members and entities, and in Bylaw
sections 2.14–17, dealing with suspension and expulsion from the
Synod. Certain of the provisions apply to those who have entered
(perhaps under obligation) into specific processes (cf. Op. 042401). Clearly, a member invoking, for example, Bylaw section
2.14 to seek suspension and expulsion of another member must
follow the procedures there identified, including those involving
Matthew 18, regardless of external factors such as one’s journalistic
pursuits.
The general preface to Bylaw section 1.10, comprising Bylaws
1.10.1–1.10.1.6, describes the expectations the congregations have
adopted for the Synod’s members “when[ever] disputes, disagree2026 Convention Workbook

ments, or offenses arise among members of the body of Christ”
(Bylaw 1.10.1), which reach members who have not intentionally
entered into a Bylaw section 1.10 process. It is the commission’s
presumption that it is primarily with regard to these generally applicable provisions that the question is put, as no specific process
is mentioned as underway or incipient. Members of the Synod are
expected to seek reconciliation of the erring: “The words of Jesus
in Matthew 18:15–20 provide the basis for church discipline for the
local congregation. The same passage also grants Christ’s guidance
to all Christians in seeking to settle other disputes, many of which
fall outside the purview of church discipline involving the congregation. In either case, the steps of Matthew 18 should be applied
lovingly in both formal and informal settings. …Conflict resolution
in the church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring the erring member in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system practiced in society” (Bylaw 1.10.1.2). The Synod’s
expectation is that its members will seek to restore the erring, but
do so gently and within the offices and procedures the Synod has
set forth for this purpose and following the scriptural admonition it
has noted in its bylaws. This expectation, too, applies to members,
regardless of external factors such as one’s journalistic pursuits.
The responsibilities outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution relative to Matthew 18 apply to members of the Synod, regardless
of one’s vocation. In Op. 04-2401, the commission has noted that
“there is no constitutional provision that allows any person, group,
board, commission or other entity to assume the responsibility of
ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given to the
President of the Synod under Article XI B or the District President
under article XII 7. This includes the formal or official constitutional responsibility to admonish or reprove members of the Synod. No
one is to interfere in the work of another.”
The commission has further noted, in the same opinion, that “if
and when a pastor or any individual or group does not assume the
constitutional responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision in the
Synod,” there is nothing to “prohibit any Christian from rebuking
a Christian brother so long as biblical” (Matthew 18) “and confessional” (Large Catechism, Eighth Commandment) “principles are
followed.”
Elsewhere, in Op. 05-2422, the commission has said that “members
of the Synod walk together according to the covenants that they
have mutually agreed upon by such membership, as delineated in
the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. One of those
covenants is provided in Bylaw 2.14.3 (c), which details how members of the Synod have agreed to respond, ‘even if the alleged violation of Article XIII of the Constitution is considered to be “public.”
In such case Matthew 18:15 is still followed.’”
Also in Op. 05-2422, the commission reasoned that “if a false doctrine or practice is public, a pastor is not prevented (while observing principles of Christian love) from informing his own congregation(s) regarding true doctrine or practice when there is danger
that the flock will be harmed by the falsehood.” “However, he may
not assume this responsibility for other congregations that are not
under his care or for the general public.”
While the “responsibilities outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution
relative to Matthew 18” apply to Synod members, no matter their
other vocations or avocations, how those responsibilities apply to
particular communications or situations depends on the particulars
of the given case.