LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 482

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

484 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS

body or to be under the ecclesiastical supervision of another
church body.

May 17, 1974

Implementation of Resolutions

The question has been asked how much evangelical free-
dom officers of the Synod and of the Districts have in holding in
abeyance the implementation of highly controversial resolu-
tions of conventions.

In its meeting on May 16—17, 1974, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters adopted the following ruling:

Article XI B 4 states: ‘‘The President shall see to it that the
resolutions of the Synod are carried out.” Article XII 9 in speak-
ing of the responsibilities of District presidents also says that
they are to “see to it that all resolutions of the Synod which
concern the Districts are made known to the Districts and are
carried out by them.”

The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that the
words “‘shall see to it’ do not permit vacillation or delay but im-
pose upon every President, synodical or District, a responsi-
bility which he must expeditiously discharge.

It should also be noted that “resolutions of the Synod are
binding on the Districts” (Bylaw 3.07 a).

In this connection the Commission on Constitutional Matters
reiterates its opinion, issued in 1966, Opinion with Regard to
the Basic Relationship Between the Synod and the Districts of
the Synod.

May 17, 1974

Constitutional Ruling on CTCR
“Guiding Principles for the Use of
A Statement”

The question has been raised in connection with A State-
ment, “May a doctrinal formulation which is not specifically
named in Article II of the synodical Constitution be used as a
test of orthodoxy in the Missouri Synod?”’

The particular concern is with regard to the statement on
page 7 of the CTCR ‘Guiding Principles for the Use of A State-
ment of Scriptural and Confessional Principles,” Principle 5 d:
“Congregations or agencies of the Synod who are calling pastors,
teachers, or professors to serve them are entitled to know and
free to inquire whether persons under consideration for a call
or appointment do in fact honor and uphold A Statement.”

If this were interpreted to mean that an individual is re-
quired to sign A Statement. it could be construed as a test of
orthodoxy and would constitute an improper binding of the
conscience. However, Guiding Principle 5 d must be under-
stood to refer to the individual's public teaching. Repeatedly
the Synod has besought its members by the mercies of God to
uphold the synodically adopted doctrinal statements and in
Resolution 2-21 of the Milwaukee convention the Synod has
said “to honor and uphold means not merely to examine and
study” the synodically adopted doctrinal statements “but to
support, act, and teach in accordance with them until they have
been shown to be contrary to God’s Word.” In this sense con-
gregations or agencies of the Synod are entitled to know and are
free to inquire whether persons under consideration for a call
or appointment do in fact honor and uphold a synodically
adopted doctrinal statement and are willing to teach publicly
in harmony with it.

May 17, 1974

Constitutional Opinion re Campus
Ministries

During recent years several joint enterprises for carrying on
campus ministry have been developed in several of the Districts
of the Synod. Descriptions of these ventures have ranged from
“purely administrative” to ‘joint ministry in Word and Sacra-
ment.” From several different directions, specifically from those
involved in the work and from the Board for Missions and its
staff, the Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked
to render a constitutional opinion.

The commission has studied the various actions taken by
recent conventions of the Synod. It has received voluminous
documentation from various sources in support of varying points
of view. It has reviewed the instruments by which some of these
joint enterprises are governed. It has sought the guidance of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations with reference
to the “theological” and “church relations” aspects of these
matters.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has arrived at the
following conclusions:

1. The Synod has indeed entrusted campus work to its
Districts.

2. The Synod, however, retains at all times to itself jurisdic-
tion with respect to everything which is administered by or for
the entire Synod, including “conduct of negotiations and affilia-
tions with other church bodies” (Bylaws 1.21, 3.07).

3. The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that joint
campus worship communities and joint campus ministries of
Word and Sacrament with church groups with which the Synod
has not as yet established fellowship relations are improper in
the light of Article III 1: Article VI 2; Bylaws 1.21, 3.07.

4. The commission also rules that it is improper for a Lu-
theran Church— Missouri Synod congregation to hold member-
ship also in another church body or to be under the ecclesiastical
supervision of another church body.

5. Districts are free to deal with representatives of other
church bodies in purely administrative matters (e. g., comity
arrangements, sharing of facilities, publicity, etc.) which do
not involve joint ministry of Word and Sacrament.

6. Whether special administrative units need to be called
into being for such purely administrative purposes may be left
to the discretion of the Districts. In many instances these may
well prove to be superfluous.

May 17, 1974

Opinion re Resolve No.6 of
New Orleans Resolution 1-06

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked to
interpret the following paragraph of New Orleans Resolution
1-06:

6. Resolved. That the members of the Board for Missions refrain
from involving themselves in the supervision and counseling of
missionaries and sister churches which is properly the function of
the mission staff.

The commission resolved to answer as follows:

The commission interprets Resolve No.6 to mean that in-
dividual members of the board should not supervise or counsel
missionaries and sister churches but that this is a prerogative
of the board itself which is usually delegated to the staff but
which may be delegated by the board to members of the board
or other individuals.

The commission suggests that the petitioners might wish to
discuss some of their practical questions with the chairman of
the Board for Missions or with the Acting Executive Secretary.

Dec. 6—7, 1974

Ruling re Election of Convention
Delegates

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked
to rule on certain procedures followed in constituting circuit
meetings which elected delegates to the convention of the
Synod.

Since voting delegates (pastoral and lay) do not represent
Districts but represent member congregations of the Synod,
the commission rules as follows:

1. A District does not have the right to prescribe who is to
represent a member congregation at a circuit meeting which
is to elect delegates to a synodical convention.

2. A member congregation has the right to determine its own
procedures as to how such representatives are to be chosen.

3. In the circuits where these principles have not been