LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 483

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS 485

observed the election of delegates and alternates is uncon-
stitutional and therefore void. In such circuits vacancies exist
in the delegate and alternate positions. The District President
is not authorized to fill such vacancies since the Bylaw giving
the President authority to fill vacancies presupposes that the
delegates and alternates were originally elected in a proper
manner. It will be necessary for the circuit to hold another
election meeting, this time with representatives chosen by the
congregations themselves, in spite of the deadline for circuit
meetings, since the only alternative would be for the congrega-
tions in such a circuit to lose their representation entirely
at the synodical convention.

4. The commission rules that counselors shall immediately
inform congregations in this situation of these rulings and
arrange for proper circuit meetings to be held for the election
of pastoral and lay delegates and alternates before March 31,
1975.

Dec. 7, 1974

Opinion re New Provision in Faculty
Contracts

The question has been asked whether new provisions can
be written into a contract of a faculty member when he is
granted tenure or advancement in rank. The commission ruled:

The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that a reap-
pointment, the granting of tenure, and advancement in rank do
constitute new contractual agreements. It holds that new
provisions can indeed be introduced at such a time.

Dec. 6—7, 1974

An Analysis of Assertions
in Present Controversy

In dealing with the many requests that have been placed
before the Commission on Constitutional Matters during this
time of controversy within the Synod, the commission has heard
recurring expressions of certain propositions. It feels con-
strained to comment on some of these assertions which in the
estimation of the commission are either invalid or are at least
misleading and in that way tend to becloud the issues before the
Synod and to vitiate the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

I. “Christians are ruled not by laws but by the Gospel."

There are several ways in which this theme has been stated
in denigrating the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod and
thus finally making them of no effect.

Among Missouri Synod Lutherans there should be no need
to state once again that we believe and confess that we are
saved not by the works of the Law but by God’s grace for
Christ's sake through faith. We exult in our freedom from the
demands of the Law as children of a gracious heavenly Father.
We remember with gratitude that Christ our Savior has ful-
filled these demands for us and that through His blood we have
forgiveness for all our sins. And so we can rejoice in the promise
of life everlasting already here and now. This is the wellspring
of our life and we will permit no legalism in whatever form to
deprive us of the joy which is ours through the unmerited grace
of our God.

Do we then renounce, repudiate, set aside the law of God?
By no means. As Lutherans learn in their Catechism instruc-
tion, the law of God has three great purposes: 1. To hold in
check the coarse outbursts of sin on the part of unbelievers
and also on the part of the old Adam of the Christian: 2. To
show us our sins so that we may truly find our joy and salvation
in Christ, the Savior from sin: 3. To serve the child of God as
a guide for his doxological life of service to the God of all love
as that life is lived out among other men. There are some who
deny the third use of the Law, but the commission affirms what
the Scriptures and our Lutheran Confessions teach regarding it.

So much can be said for the law of God. It has a place in the
life of the Christian. But is there room for human, man-made
laws in the life of Christians together? We submit that there is.
Whenever two individuals, even Christian people, enter into
a relationship with each other— whether it be in marriage or in
a business partnership or in whatever relationship it may be

—certain agreements, rules, contracts. covenants—“‘laws,” if
you will—become necessary. The same is true when Christians
join together as a worshiping and serving community of God
in the world. It is customary for Lutheran congregations to use
not only the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions but also un-
written traditions and especially written Constitutions and
Bylaws as instruments under which they agree to govern them-
selves. This is true also of larger federations of Christians, such
as agencies, councils, and synods.

In our Synod we make certain commitments to one another.
We agree what we shall do and how we shall do it and why we
shall do it. These agreements are spelled out in a Constitution.
in Bylaws, and in resolutions. We promise to walk together
according to the agreements that we have made. We pledge
one another our word.

Since Christians recognize the law of Christian love as the
highest law of human conduct, it governs also our life together
within the Synod. In Christ we love those with whom we have
joined hands and to whom we have given our pledge, and so
we keep our word to them. We carry out our solemn covenants
and agreements. To set aside any article of the Constitution.
a Bylaw, or even a resolution of the Synod, simply because in
our personal estimation it is not acceptable, means to exalt our
own will above the will of the Synod stated especially in its
Constitution and Bylaws. That would be self-seeking, self-
righteous, judgmental, and loveless. This is not the way of
Christians with one another.

To be sure, there are genuine instances when conscience
is involved. It may be a conscience instructed by the Word of
God or it may be an erring one. Lutherans are sensitive to the
plea of conscience. Lutherans sometimes forget, however, that
Martin Luther placed his great emphasis on the conscience
which is informed and instructed by the Word of God. We need
to guard against using conscience as a misnomer for personal
desire and opinion. The Synod has always made provision to
respect the genuine demands of conscience. However, the indi-
vidual who is troubled in his conscience must also respect the
conscience of those who do not agree with him and be prepared
to support his position from the Word of God. As our teachers
have so long pointed out, one must distinguish carefully between
the giving of offense and the taking of offense. If the Synod were
to halt its operations whenever someone takes offense at its
action, the Synod would be paralyzed. To be sure. the Synod
must be on its guard never to give offense. But the individual,
over against the Synod. must also exercise great care that he
is truly governed by love and not by self-interest or self-will.

To bring all this down to the issue with which we are dealing:
It is a breech of Christian love to place self-will above the
mutually agreed upon will of the Synod as it has stated it in
its Constitution and Bylaws.

II. “People are more important than rules.”

Of course. Our Lord’s death on the cross has made that clear
for all time. And yet, we need to guard against wrong conclu-
sions. Even in the matter of our redemption God, in spite of
His love for sinners, did not simply set His law aside. The Law
needed to be fulfilled and the penalty for its transgression
needed to be paid. God’s grace did not come cheap. It cost Him
the best that He had. It cost Him the lifeblood of His Son.

All too often “people are more important than rules’’ be-
comes a rationalistic slogan. Rules seem to be fine as long as
they operate in our favor: but when we find ourselves in dis-
agreement with the rules we easily resort to the role of “‘justi-
fying ourselves.”

Furthermore, the slogan is fallacious if it is meant to imply
that any person is exempt from or above commonly agreed upon
rules or laws, In our own nation we have established once
again that not even the highest officials are above the law.

We have already indicated the place of law, rule, covenant,
contract in our life together in the Synod. These rules which
we have adopted are not in opposition to the welfare of people;
on the contrary, they are designed to protect and to foster the
welfare of people. When a few rebel against the “rules” and
resort to arguments such as “people are more important than
rules” to justify their action, one needs to ask which is the more
important: the self-will of the few or the welfare of the many?
If certain “rules” are really injurious to the many, then the
many — not just the few — have the right and the means to change
the rules. But until the many have reached that decision, the