LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 248

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

248 CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

WHEREAS, It has been stated by at least one other District
President that he intends to bring action against District Presi-
dents who have ordained or installed graduates of Seminex; and

WHEREAS, The President of the New Jersey District has
called to the attention of the congregations in New Jersey and
the President of the Synod that in the light of Article VII of the
Constitution “to bar one hundred eight candidates from the
ministry who have completed three and three quarter years of
training at the 801 DeMun campus and their final two or three
months of Seminary training in a Seminary in Exile, because
they protested the condemnation of their professors as false
teachers .. . is neither Scriptural nor Confessional”; and

WHEREAS, A harmonious plan of placement of all candidates
from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Concordia Seminary,
Springfield, and Seminex had been agreed upon, which was
later frustrated by the unilaterial decision of Concordia Semi-
nary, St. Louis; and

WHEREAS, We seek a harmonious recognition of fraternity
within the Synod and feel the removal from office or the dis-
cipline of the synodical convention against the Presidents of
individual Districts over this matter would be in violation of that
spirit of fraternity and would tend to work against the autonomy
of the individual congregations within District: therefore be it

Resolved, That all efforts to censure, reprimand, or remove
from office President Walter Zeile of the New Jersey District
and other District Presidents because of their act of ordaining
and/or installing graduates of the 1974 class of Seminex be
repudiated and the Synod as an act of reconciliation go on record
as discouraging and deploring any further efforts of reprisal
against these leaders of our church’s Districts.

Redeemer Lutheran Church
Newton, N. J.

Gus Gewecke, President
Bruce E. Rudolf, Pastor

3-111

To Reject CCM’s ‘Opinion re:
Removal of District Presidents
from Office”

WHEREAS, The Commission on Constitutional Matters of
The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod on Feb. 21, 1975, issued
an “Opinion Re: Removal of District Presidents from Office”:
and

WHEREAS, This opinion deals with constitutional matters
that are of crucial importance to the life and work of the Synod:
and

WHEREAS, Opinions of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters ‘‘shall be binding on the question decided unless and
until it is overruled by a Synodical Convention” (2.107 e): and

WHEREAS, Some portions of this opinion conflict with the
Constitution of the Synod:

1. In 1, A, 2 the opinion states: ‘‘The Constitution of the
Synod provides for the adoption of Bylaws. All duly and regu-
larly adopted Bylaws which remain in force and effect are an
extension of the Constitution.’ While the Constitution of the
Synod may assume the adoption of Bylaws (see Articles X, XI,
XID), it does not in fact provide for the adoption of Bylaws. Only
the Articles of Incorporation of the Synod do that (Art. VII).
Nor does the Constitution allow the judgment that Bylaws “are
an extension of the Constitution.” Rather the Constitution is
silent and does not define the status or nature of Bylaws.

By its opinion the Commission on Constitutional Matters
gives Bylaws a status equal to the status of the Constitution, for
the Commission on Constitutional Matters makes violations of
Bylaws tantamount to violations of the Constitution and there-
fore due cause for expulsion from the Synod.

The Constitution forbids such a judgment on the part of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters.

a. Article XI B 1 and 2 directs the President of the Synod
to see to it that specifically named officers of the Synod are to
“act in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution.” There is no
directive or authority regarding enforcement of Bylaws.

b. Article VII gives to member congregations of the Synod
certain discretionary powers.

In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical gov-
ernment exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect
to the individual congregation's right of self-government it is but an
advisory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing
anything upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is
not in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inex-
pedient as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned.

Since Bylaws are a form of synodical resolutions, it is logical
to assume that member congregations have been guaranteed
the freedom to determine whether or not conditions make it
expedient or not for the congregation to carry out specific
Bylaws.

c. Article XIII establishes the basis and the procedure for
expulsion from the Synod. This Article cites Article VI and the
conditions for membership. Nowhere do these articles say or
imply that violation of Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod
becomes due cause for expulsion from the Synod.

d. Article III 8. This states as one of the objects of the Synod
“the protection of pastors, teachers, and congregations in the
performance of their duties and the maintenance of their rights.”
Article XI B 1 and 2 make it clear that officers of the Synod are
to act in accordance with the Constitution, including the objects
of the Synod. Obviously the Constitution does not provide that
officers can be expelled from the Synod for discharging their
duties as outlined in Article III 8.

e. By its opinion the Commission on Constitutional Matters
has in effect amended the Constitution of the Synod without
observing the procedures for doing so as required by Article
XIV. (In a similar situation the Synod in its convention of 1962
declared Resolution 9 of its 1959 convention to be unconstitu-
tional because the adoption of that resolution had the effect of
amending the Constitution without following the procedures
prescribed for such amendments.

2. In I A9 the Commission on Constitutional Matters under-

takes an interpretation of Bylaw 5.13. That Bylaw says in part

In the event that the District President is disqualified or unable

to act, the First Vice-President or the next qualified District officer

shall be authorized to suspend and to submit the case to the Com-
mission of Adjudication as herein provided.

If the District officers fail to act, the President of the Synod, by
virtue of the power given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1-3,
inclusive), may on his own initiative institute proceedings, take ad-
ministrative action, and, if necessary, present charges to the appro-
priate District Commission of Adjudication. .. .

In its opinion the Commission on Constitutional Matters goes
beyond those clear statements of Bylaw 5-13. The Commission
says in part

. or if, in the opinion of the complainants, the said District Vice-
President failed to give serious consideration to the complaint and/or
treated the complaint in a sham or frivolous manner, then the com-
plainants may present the complaint to the President of the Synod,
who shall review the substance and the facts of the complaint and
review the actions of the said District Vice-President which were
taken in regard to the complaint, and if the President of the Synod
determines that the said District Vice-President failed to act at all,
or failed to give serious consideration to the complaint, and/or treated
the complaint in a sham or frivolous manner... .

a. This statement in the opinion exceeds the clear state-
ments of Bylaw 5.13. Further, there is no warrant by implica-
tion in Bylaw 5.13 or in other portions of the Constitution and
Bylaws which permit a complainant to circumvent the structure
and procedures of the Synod to secure another hearing on the
basis of a subjective judgment that an official of the Synod has
treated his case “in a sham or frivolous manner.”

b. This statement in the opinion exceeds the authority of
the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Bylaw 2.107 e stipu-
lates that the Commission on Constitutional Matters ‘shall
interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. ...”
The Commission on Constitutional Matters has arrogated to
itself a legislative power which the Synod has reserved to itself.
Without constitutional or convention authorization, the Com-
mission has in this instance altered and added to the Bylaws
of the Synod.

c. This statement in the opinion violates those provisions
of the Constitution by which the Synod has created its own
structure for supervision. That structure does not allow for
members of the Synod to circumvent the officials and the pro-