LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 206

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

206 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

2. The dominant role of the convention in the governmental
philosophy of the Synod must be kept firmly in mind. The
Articles of Incorporation (Article III) state: “The power of the
corporation shall be lodged with the accredited clergy and lay
delegates of the congregations” (see also Article IV). The Con-
stitution of the Synod also emphasizes the role of the synodical
convention, especially in Articles V, VIII, 1X, and even in XII Ya.
Bylaw 1.21 states: ‘The delegate convention of the Synod shall
be the Synod’s chief legislative assembly. It shall establish
policies, programs, and procedures to carry on the Synod's
work.”’ Bylaw 1.27 a requires all officers, boards, and commis-
sions of the Synod to report on their performance to the con-
ventions. The same Bylaw also reserves to members the right
to present overtures to the convention. Bylaw 2.14 sets forth
the accountability of officers, boards, and commissions and
states explicitly that any decisions of such officers, boards, and
commissions may be appealed to the delegate convention of
the Synod. From all this, two facts are evident: (1) the authority
of the convention and (2) the right of the membership to ap-
proach the convention with work proposals, grievances, etc.

Application to Bylaw 1.27 ¢

1. Bylaw 1.27 ¢ states that among overtures that are not to
be accepted are “overtures requesting the Synod to take action
which is in conflict with the Constitution or Bylaws of the
Synod.” If this is taken to mean that a member cannot ask the
Synod to change its Constitution or Bylaws, the statement is
obviously unconstitutional. If the statement is taken to mean that
no unconstitutional action can be taken without amending the
Constitution or Bylaws, it would seem that the provision is super-
fluous. Perhaps at best the statement should be rewritten to
read: “Overtures requesting the Synod to take action which is
contrary to the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod must pro-
vide for the specific revision of such articles in harmony with
the provisions set forth in the Constitution or Bylaws for amend-
ing the Constitution and Bylaws.”

2. Bylaw 1.27 ¢ also states that among overtures which are
not to be accepted are overtures ‘in matters for which the
Constitution or Bylaws have provided specific procedures.”
A literalistic interpretation of these words would, in effect,
deny the right of access on the part of the membership to the
convention of the Synod, as indicated above. Almost all over-
tures submitted to the recent New Orleans convention of the
Synod could have been referred under a literalistic interpre-
tation of this clause to various officers, boards, and commis-
sions of the Synod. It may well be that in a given case a conven-
tion might refer the petitioner to a certain procedure to be
followed before making his appeal to the convention, but this
should remain the prerogative of the convention. This clause
should be dropped from the Bylaw as either (1) superfluous,
on the basis of a relaxed interpretation such as the Presidents
have followed in the past since the adoption of this Bylaw, or
as (2) unconstitutional on the basis of a strict, literal interpre-
tation.

3. The Bylaw also calls for the denial of overtures “which
contain defamatory allegations or overtures which may subject
the President of the Synod or the Synod to civil actions for libel
or slander.” (1) The first part of this two-pronged requirement
is double-edged. As Christian people we should be on our guard
against anything defamatory. It is true, however, that those who
are entrusted with responsibility by the Synod are accountable
to the Synod and if a certain segment of the membership feels
that such officers have been derelict in their duties and call
upon the Synod to take remedial action, can this always be
regarded as defamatory? The decision whether or not a certain
overture is in fact defamatory is entirely too subjective to be
meaningful. (2) The provision regarding legal suits for libel
or slander is more manageable since there are civil laws to this
effect. It would be worthwhile for the Synod to retain this pro-
vision in the Bylaw to enable the officers of the Synod, upon
advice of legal counsel, to decline that which would subject the
Synod to legal action. One would hope that defamatory allega-
tions beyond that point would be dealt with by the inner re-
straints which ought to guide all Christian people.

4. The Bylaw finally states: “. .. nor shall any overture be
accepted with reference to any case involving suspension,
expulsion, or appeals.’ This cannot mean that a member of the

Synod cannot ask the Synod to suspend an officer from his
position, for such a denial would again nullify the function and
power of a convention, as well as the accountability of all officers
to the Synod in convention and the rights of membership. It
can only mean that any case in which a person has been sus-
pended or expelled and which is now in the process of or still
subject to appeal should not at that moment in history be made
a matter for convention action. This clause, therefore, needs
to be rewritten.
Proposal

It is proposed that Bylaw 1.27 c be revised to read:

c. Overtures with reference to a case in which
a member has been suspended or expelled and which
is at present in the process of or subject to appeal as
well as overtures which, upon advice of legal counsel,
may subject the Synod or the corporate officers of the
Synod to civil action for libel or slander shall not be
accepted for convention consideration.

App. 5-01 B

Constitutional Opinion on New Orleans
Resolutions 2-12, 3-01, 3-09

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has received
many requests to issue rulings on New Orleans Resolutions
2-12, 3-01, and 3-09.

On several occasions during its history the Synod has
adopted doctrinal statements (e.g., Formulation re Chiliasm.
1857: Thirteen Theses on Predestination. 1881; Brief Statement,
1932: Common Confession, 1953). The Synod has never repu-
diated a synodically adopted doctrinal statement, and it is
interesting to note that the constitutional question regarding
the adoption of such statements has been raised apparently
only in recent times.

In the course of these past months the commission has spent
many hours discussing the requests to rule on New Orleans
Resolutions 2-12, 3-01, 3-09, has studied many solicited and
unsolicited analyses of these resolutions, has traced the legis-
lative history of doctrinal resolutions, especially the often mis-
understood history of San Francisco Resolution 9 and Cleveland
Resolutions 6-01 and 3-17, and has interviewed many qualified
persons.

The commission now issues the following opinion:

Resolution 2-12

In order to give witness to its faith in the face of contemporary
issues and in order to settle controversies within its own midst,
the Synod has the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions and to
ask its members to uphold them. In doing so the Synod cannot
and does not establish new doctrines but merely gives joyful
assent to what in its conviction is taught in the sacred Scrip-
tures. Indeed, insofar as such resolutions are in accord with
the Scriptures they are binding on those who accept Article II
of the Synod’s Constitution.

II.
Resolution 3-01

Since the Synod has the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions,
it also had the right to adopt Resolution 3-01.

In Resolution 3-01 the Synod approved a document known
as A Statement. That document therefore comes under the pro-
vision of New Orleans Resolution 2-12: ‘That the Synod reaffirm
its position (Milwaukee Proceedings. Res. 2-21 and 5-24) that
such statements, insofar as they are in accord with the Scrip-
tures and the pattern of doctrine set forth in the Lutheran
Symbols, are, pursuant to Article II of the Synod’s Constitution,
binding upon all its members (cf. also Article VIJ).”

However, the Synod cannot make A Statement binding upon
its members in the same sense in which the Scripture is binding.
Nor can it ask its members to bind themselves to A Statement
in the same manner in which they freely bind themselves to
the Lutheran Confessions.

Resolution 3-01 does not broaden the confessional base of
the Synod. It was not offered as a constitutional amendment.
It is to be recognized as a properly adopted resolution. In it
the Synod determined that A Statement defines the corporate