Review of Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Our synod has been blessed with an unambiguous, succinct, biblically-based, and thoroughly Lutheran constitution, which has served it amazingly well for over 160 years. It has been a model for free-church Lutheran constitutions around the world. Even an apparently minor change in a constitution can have dramatic and fateful effects, which is why 2/3rds of the congregations of the synod must approve any changes to wording or substance (see Constitution, Article XIV).

The proposed changes to the constitution are now available at the synod's web-site, altering the Preamble and Articles II, III, VI, VII and VIII. The following comments are based on these proposed changes, which are indicated by "PROPOSED." The present constitution and bylaws found in the 2007 Handbook are indicated by "PRESENT." The Blue Ribbon Task Force threatens to make more constitutional changes before its work is over.

1) PROPOSED language is long-winded and uses ambiguous language. Ambiguity in constitutional language creates dissent and strife in organizations and governments.

2) PRESENT Preamble explains why its founders created the synod. PROPOSED Preamble eliminates the historical reference, thereby making the Preamble just another long-winded "Mission and Purpose" statement and therefore useless.

3) PROPOSED Preamble eliminates the phrase "example of the apostolic church." This phrase was included in PRESENT Preamble in order to express the synod's unity with the "one, holy, Christian, and apostolic church" and to explain that the Missouri Synod was doing what the apostles' did. PROPOSED Preamble phrase "in the spirit of the apostolic church" implies that we won't do what the apostles did, since "in the spirit of" is always used as an excuse for not following an example. The result of PROPOSED Preamble is a sectarian doctrine of the church.

4) PROPOSED Preamble, and many other articles, use the ambiguous phrase "God's mission." This comes from the theology of Missio Dei, which is not Lutheran. The phrase can mean the work that God does himself, e.g., as explained in the Creeds, or it can mean the work that Christians do on God's behalf. Some theologians use "God's mission" to assert that whatever the church does, even if it does not have God's command, is God's work, because the visible church is doing it. "God's mission" as a phrase is not biblical and is incompatible with Lutheran theology.

5) PROPOSED II.A states that "every member of the Synod believes, teaches, and confesses." Since organized congregations are the primary members of synod, it is incorrect to say that they "believe, teach, and confess." "Believe, teach, and confess" is what individuals do. Organized congregations may "accept" a confession of faith, which is what they do in PRESENT II.

6) PROPOSED II.B.1 replaces the phrase "only rule and norm", with "only judge, rule, and guiding principle." The citation in PROPOSED II.B.1 points to Formula of Concord Epitome, Rule and Norm, 7, which reads "only judge, rule, and norm" (Tappert, page 465). We don't know where the Blue Ribbon Task Force got the term "guiding principle.""Norm" is an absolute. "Guiding principle" is only a "general direction for things." PROPOSED II.B.1 is thus an attempt to mute or eliminate the normative authority of the Bible in the Missouri Synod, which has been expressed in its original and PRESENT constitution, the Brief Statement of 1932, the Statement on Scripture of 1959, and A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles of 1973.

7) PROPOSED II.B.2 replaces the term "unadulterated" with "correct." "Unadulterated" means without any additions, deletions, or compromises. "Unadulterated" is based on the Lutheran notion that the Word of God can be expressed elsewhere than simply in the Bible, but that in order to claim the title "Word of God" a sermon or exposition must not add, delete, distort, or compromise the "whole counsel of God." When PRESENT II.2 says that the Lutheran Confessions are "unadulterated," it means they have not added, deleted, distorted, or compromised what the Bible says about the issues addressed therein. PRESENT II.2 has a much stronger claim about the Confessions than simply saying they are "correct."

8) PROPOSED III.A.1 is so long-winded that it is ambiguous.

9) PROPOSED III.A.1 changes the place from which evangelism and mission is done. PRESENT III.2 has "congregations and their members . . . giving bold witness," which reflects the Biblical idea of personal witness and testimony. PROPOSED III.A.1 says that "The Synod . . . acts . . . to give bold witness" which reflects the modern idea of "publicity and communications." Both PRESENT III.2 and PROPOSED III.A.1 have poor grammar, and thus ambiguity, but this is a minor point compared to the loss of the Biblical idea of personal evangelism in PROPOSED III.A.1.

10) PROPOSED III.A.2 has a purpose of the synod to "manifest the unity of the true faith in Jesus Christ", quoting John 17. This is stated in distinction to another purpose to "manifest the confessional unity within the Synod" in PROPOSED III.A.3. The separation of these two types of unity points back to long debates in the Missouri Synod about the unity based on "faith as a function of the soul" (fides qua) and "the faith as the doctrine confessed by the church" (fides quae). We do not intend to rehearse these complicated debates, but they are important for the Lutheran doctrine of the church and church fellowship. PRESENT III.1 does not try to "manifest" any unity, because this is a function of the "marks of the church," as explained in Augsburg Confession VII. PROPOSED III.A.2 phrase "the true faith in Jesus Christ" implies the fides qua, which is the basis of unity only in the invisible church. We think the intent of the authors of PROPOSED III.A.2 is to assert that there is unity of the visible church in the fides qua, in which case it is a capitulation to the pressures of the ecumenical movement, contrary to the Lutheran doctrines of the church and Augsburg Confession VII (see August Suelflow, Heritage in Motion [St Louis: CPH, 198], pp. 111-113).

11) PROPOSED III.B.8 eliminates the phrase "encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice" found in PRESENT III.7. The wording in PRESENT III.7 is offensive to many people in the Missouri Synod who despise good Lutheran practice. There are many persons in the synod who claim that worship practice and church polity are completely "adiaphora," and that the attempt to "encourage . . .uniformity" is legalism. Many of them also want a diversity of communion admission policies. One might quote C.F.W. Walther who wrote: "The fact that a truly Lutheran congregation needs neither a definite organization nor a fixed ceremonial instituted by men is attested by Article VII of the Augsburg Confession" (our emphasis; see Walther, The Form of a Christian Congregation [St Louis: CPH, 1963], p. 2-3). But Walther then immediately quotes Luther's 1539 letter to Buchholzer in which Luther accepts adiaphora "if only the abusus (misuse) is kept away, neither add anything to the Gospel (i.e., New Testament) nor take anything away from it." Thus both Walther and Luther agree that there are church practices that are not Lutheran or Biblical, so one cannot say that "anything goes" in church practices. PRESENT III.7 has a good balance in that it encourages uniformity for the sake of harmony out of love for the brethren, but also respects "a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith." PROPOSED III.B.8 reflects the attitude of people in the synod who don't care about harmony (concordia), but who have accepted the late 20th century American motto "Do your own thing!"

12) PROPOSED VI.A.1 and VI.B.1 mistakenly have members "subscribing" to the Constitution of the synod. "Subscription" is a Lutheran theological term, referring to one's public acceptance of the Lutheran confessions.

13) PROPOSED VI.B.2 deletes the "exclusive" clause in PRESENT VI.4. PROPOSED VI.B.2 thus requires that churches and schools use resources in harmony with synod's confessions, but also allows them to use other materials not in harmony with the same. This opens the door to all sorts of non-Lutheran songbooks, hymnbooks, catechisms, etc.

14) PROPOSED VI.B.3 replaces PRESENT VI.2, the latter of which is the synod's classic statement of its opposition to unionistic and syncretistic practices. PRESENT VI.2 is one of the synod's constitutional provisions that has distinguished it from other Lutherans in this country. PROPOSED VI.B.3 term "non-participation" is awkward and ambiguous. PRESENT VI.2 states exactly what activities are prohibited. Its replacement in PROPOSED VI.B.3.a is simply the phrase "practicing church fellowship," which would permit the activities prohibited by PRESENT VI.2 depending on how "church fellowship" is defined. PRESENT VI.2 states exactly which organizations members cannot participate in. Its replacement in PROPOSED VI.B.3.b prohibits "supporting organizations or causes that promote a position contrary to the confessional position of the synod," which would permit participating in "heterodox activities," so long as they don't promote an offensive position. One could also argue, under PROPOSED VI.B.3.b that "participation" is allowed, so long as one does not "support" such an organization. The result is that PRESENT VI.2 is effectively neutralized, probably because it is offensive to many people in the Missouri Synod today.

15) PROPOSED VI.B.2 contradicts both PROPOSED VII.A.1 and PRESENT VII. These sections pertain to the rights of the congregations of the synod, protected by Article VII of the Constitution. In Carl Mundinger's classic, Government in the Missouri Synod (now out of print, published by CPH), he explained how this became the essence of Missouri Synod's form of congregational polity. It is also why the Missouri Synod has been so detested by the clergy of Lutheran synods historically not in fellowship with it. PROPOSED VI.B.2 requires that congregations "agree to abide by, honor, and uphold the collective will of the Synod as expressed in its Constitution, bylaws, and conventions resolutions." PRESENT VII states "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 it if it appears to be inexpedient." We agree that congregations must abide by the Constitution of synod, including its confessional statement, otherwise they are not really members at all. That is why the constitutional amendment process requires the agreement of 2/3rds of all congregations. Bylaws (which are adopted through resolutions) and other resolutions that pertain to congregations are advisory, if the synod is an "advisory body." What the Blue Ribbon Task Force gives in PROPOSED VII.A.1 it takes away in PROPOSED VII.B.2. Walther, and all the leaders of the Missouri Synod up until the 1960s, always reminded the synod in convention that it was in an advisory relationship to its congregations. Present synodical leadership wants to change that for a more autocratic structure and government. PROPOSED VII.B.2 is the proof of that! Laymen should wake up and see how this proposed amendment will eliminate the right of governing of their own congregation, free from synodical interference.

16) PROPOSED VII.B.4 deals with the issue of dissent, which is found in PRESENT Bylaws 1.8.1 and 1.8.2. PRESENT Bylaws 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 explain how one should express dissent to "doctrinal resolutions" of a synodical convention. This has been necessitated by the fact that doctrinal disagreements have the potential for significant disruption, and are thus best moderated by third parties, if possible. PROPOSED VII.B.4, however, requires following the dissent process for anything that the "Synod" does, whether it is a convention, board, or officer doing it. This will become cumbersome in practice. How many more synodical bureaucrats will we have to hire to deal with all the expressions of dissent? This is really just a way for the officials of the synod to outlaw all public expressions of dissent to "Synod actions or positions," which includes both convention actions and those initiated by boards and officers. If people cannot publicly dissent to the actions of boards and officers between conventions, then there will be no way to effectively express dissent through resolutions at conventions. Then synod conventions will lose their ability to legislate effectively on issues, resulting in an autocratic executive branch. Present synodical leadership wants to cripple the legislative powers of the synod convention, and this proposed amendment is the proof of their intent.

17) PROPOSED VIII.A.1 changes the period between conventions from three to four years. That is better than the six year period originally proposed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, but the traditional period of three years is a happy medium. Three years gives enough time for new officers and boards to get acquainted with their jobs, and actually accomplish something, but also not too much time to do damage if they are incompetent or a liability.

18) PROPOSED VIII.C.2.b changes the requirements for adoption of doctrinal statements and doctrinal resolutions. In PRESENT Bylaws 1.6.2, doctrinal resolutions are adopted by a majority vote at convention, in order to express the synod conventions' current position. Doctrinal statements are adopted by 2/3rds of all congregations, thus elevating them to the level of a constitutional statement. PROPOSED VIII.C.2.b makes it easier to adopt doctrinal statements, by eliminating the vote of congregations. The result is that, in PROPOSED VIII.C.2.b, there is no functional difference between doctrinal statements and "certain doctrinal resolutions of special significance." It appears that the Blue Ribbon Task Force is ignorant of the reasons for the difference between doctrinal statements and doctrinal resolutions. There has been some important and controversial debate about the applicability of doctrinal resolutions and statements to congregations, if synod is an advisory body. If synod is more than an advisory body, as PROPOSED VI.B.2 would assert, then all of the doctrinal resolutions in the history of the synod would have to be followed by congregations (for a complete list and text of all these doctrinal resolutions, see The Doctrinal Resolutions of the National Conventions of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 1847-2004 [St Louis: CHI, 2006. CD-ROM format]). PROPOSED VI.B.2, if passed, will thus determine how significant PROPOSED VIII.C.2.b will be. The Missouri Synod's traditional understanding is that doctrinal resolutions and statements express what the Missouri Synod, as a body, believes about certain issues of doctrine or church practice. These resolutions and statements are binding on the officers of the synod, including district officials, circuit counselors, missionaries, and college and seminar professors. They are not binding in the same way on local congregations or their church-workers, i.e., the members of the synod, but they should be respected as the synod's position and this position should not be mis-represented by any member of the synod.