A Wise Change in Constitution and Bylaws

By David S. Luecke

The LCMS Convention this July in Houston will devote most of its time considering and voting on proposed changes in the Synod Constitution and Bylaws.  This agenda was shaped through the three-year synod-wide process led by The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance.

In the last newsletter I commented about proposed changes to the first three articles of the Constitution.  They all are aimed at clarifying the fundamental commitment of Synod to mission outreach.  None of the wording proposes change beyond clarification of what has been understood throughout the 153 year history of this Synod.  To vote against these resolutions is to vote against mission.

Organizational Issues

Most of the bylaw changes address basic organizational issues.  Lutheran tradition is that congregations and their associations are free to change their structure in ways that make sense for their time and circumstances.  For many practical reasons, it makes sense now to simplify Synod structure and shift emphases back to congregations and their districts.

Doctrinal Issues

But one set of proposed resolutions needs to be highlighted because it addresses the fundamental confessional position of the Synod, whatever its organizational form.  The present Constitution Article VIII.C speaks to “Resolutions at Synodical Meetings.”  It is a very simple statement:  “All matters of doctrine and conscience shall be decided only by the Word of God.  All others matters shall be decided by a majority vote.”

So, who decides what is a matter of doctrine and conscience?  If all other matters can be decided by a majority vote, what kind of vote does it take to adopt a doctrinal position?

The present Bylaw 1.6.2.a outlines the process for formulating a new doctrinal statement and submitting it to a Synod convention through the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.  It can be accepted at the convention by a simple majority vote, although to be ratified and operative it needs to be approved by two thirds of the member congregations.

The new statements under Constitution Article VIII.C strengthen the requirement for a two thirds majority.  Then Bylaws 1.6.2, 3, and 4 carefully define and distinguish between Doctrinal Resolutions, Doctrinal Resolutions of Special Significance, and Doctrinal Statements.  The latter two address areas of controversy.  The special resolutions are short statements, and the convention floor committee will determine whether it qualifies as doctrinal.  Doctrinal statements are the longer studies done and submitted by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.  In either case convention approval of a statement needs to be done by a super majority.

The Need for a Super Majority

Why is it important to have a two thirds majority vote for anything resembling a doctrinal position?  That question is easier to answer in the year 2010 than it would have been before the very controversial vote last summer on requirements for ordination at the convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.  Whether practicing homosexuals, even in a committed relationship, should be ordained has been the center of ELCA controversy for most of a decade.  Previous votes could never approach a two third majority.  The rules for their 2009 convention were simply changed to consider as sufficient a simple majority, which was barely reached.

At issue with the size of a majority vote is basically a matter of institutional wisdom.  If almost half of the members are opposed to a change in fundamental position, the outcome is guaranteed to continue to be divisive, so much so that many of the congregations will opt out of the association.  The protest results in the ELCA are becoming apparent a year later. 

Who knows what doctrinal statements will be controversial in the LCMS 40 years from now?  Whatever the issue, the Synod is more likely to retain its institutional strength if the minority recognizes that most (two thirds) of the fellow members thought the statement makes sense.  Further protest is not likely to change anything.