Some Board Members Unwilling to Acknowledge Convention’s Authority

The Board of Directors (BOD) of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod considered a number of important issues of synodical management at its  regular meeting November 17-18, 2004.

The good news is that they could not raise a majority to act on agenda item 30.  The bad and sad news is that the proposal ever got on the agenda.

According to the minutes of that meeting they failed to obtain a majority to take action on “A Legal Remedy to Clarify Board Authority.”

After eleven Whereas paragraphs, the resolution was “That the Board of Directors seek legal remedy through the courts of the State of Missouri to confirm the authority granted to it by the Constitution and Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.”

A motion to refer the matter to the Legal Committee of the Board failed by a vote of 7 to 7.    A motion to amend the Whereas paragraphs failed by a vote of 5 Yes to 9 No.  The matter was dropped.  The identity of those voting Yes or No was not recorded.

Unwilling to Accept the Convention’s Will

Clearly five members of the Board were not willing to accept the will of the large majority of delegates at the 2004 synodical Convention last summer.

The issue is how much authority the Synod wants to give to the Board of Directors. 

By a two-thirds vote, the convention declared that the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod determine the authority and duties delegated to other officers and agencies of the Synod.  This amendment to clarify Article XI F 2 of the Constitution needs to be affirmed by two-thirds of the congregations casting a vote before the deadline of February 16.

The Convention decisively voted for what was explained many times to be the historic responsibilities and authority assigned to the Board of Directors.  Yet this does not seem to be enough for some members of the Board.

How Could They?

Did these five members of the current BOD know what they were doing?  Apparently so.   The rationale is laid out in thirteen whereas paragraphs.  There is nothing new.

These five want legal recourse because:  Board authority was challenged before the Convention, they sought legal opinion from a Missouri law firm declaring that absolute Board authority is necessary to  comply with not-for-profit statutes of the State of Missouri, and that opinion was ignored at the Convention. 

One could argue that you cannot ignore something you have not seen.  The complete legal opinion valued so highly by these Board members has never been made public.  Clearly they are not willing to recognize the extensive  body of opinion offered by other legal scholars that the delegates found to be persuasive.  References are in the last paragraph of this article.  

In other words, they lost the argument, and they don’t like it.

What does this attitude imply about their understanding of leadership in the congregational polity of the Missouri Synod.   The church at large cannot act any more clearly than it did in Convention resolution 7-02A.  But that is not good enough. 

These five board members would apparently have the BOD sue Synod.  Mind-boggling.  Especially so considering that protecting Synod from lawsuits is one of the basic functions of the Board, a responsibility clearly recognized in another Whereas.

Little Respect for Fellow Officers

Part of the rationale for the failed Board resolution to seek legal redress against Synod was another disagreement with the Commission on Constitutional Matters.  In the CCM’s considered opinion, congregational failure to ratify Amendment A of the Constitution would not matter because the current Article  XI F 2 sufficiently states that the Board’s authority is determined by Convention resolution.  Doesn’t it matter that the 2004 Convention found the CCM’s judgment to be sound?

Nor does the resolution show much respect for Rev. Warren Schumacher, chair of the 2004 convention Floor Committee #7 that, after intense hours of discussion and negotiation, worked out the resolution to amend the Constitution.  He is faulted for creating “a great deal of confusion” when in an official publication he declared that the amendment simply affirms how the LCMS has conducted its business.  Who would better know the will of the convention than the chairman of the floor committee that worked it out to the satisfaction of two-thirds of the delegates?

Rev. Schumacher is faulted a second time for circulating “an inappropriate letter” questioning the BOD authority and again affirming that the amendment only affirms what has been historically understood.  What is inappropriate when an officer of the Convention explains what the Convention did?

What next?

Thank God good judgment prevailed at the November meeting.  The nine sensible members are to be commended. 

What will the five try in the future?  Since they are unwilling to acknowledge that they no longer represent the will of the Synod, who knows?  They bear close watching.

Minutes of BOD meetings are available for anyone to read at http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2425

Those who want to know more about the conflicting legal opinions considered by the 2004 Convention can find them on the Jesus First website at  http://www.jesusfirst.net/webarticle26.htm.    The opinions of the five LCMS attorneys who challenged the opinion of the legal firm engaged by the board can be read at:  http://www.jesusfirst.net/2004July02.htm.   JJC