The CCM has recently responded to several questions concerning the synod’s Conflict Resolution procedures under Bylaw 1.10. In CCM opinion 06-2482, the questions submitted, like so many received by the CCM in the past few years, appear designed to solicit a particular answer, which not surprisingly diminishes the rights and authority of the members of the Board of Directors. While reading through the multiple questions and answers is an ordeal in-and-of-itself, they can safely be described as attempting to deprive members of the Board of Directors of the right they have under Missouri law to use the courts to protect the Synod, and to impose upon board members the time consuming, expensive, and onerous task of defending themselves in the Conflict Resolution process from any member who may not agree with their decisions. Of course nothing in Bylaw 1.10 precludes members of the Board of Directors from exercising their rights under civil law to make use of the courts to defend the rights and the integrity of the Synod. Indeed that is the legal duty and obligation of board members under proper circumstances. Instead of stating the obvious, the CCM goes along with the questions and provides answers that imply that board members of the Synod are deprived of the rights given to them under civil law. The Synod has often recognized that “the synod is in no way exempt from the applicable provisions of civil law.” Why will the CCM not acknowledge the obvious?

The CCM has once again issued opinions that affect the authority of the Board of Directors. Once again, the CCM has issued opinions that conflict with past CCM opinions, conflict with Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws, and are at odds with Missouri law. And once again, the authority of the Board of Directors has been improperly diminished while the authority of the President is expanded. This time the CCM opinions are in response to questions relating to Bylaw 1.5.12 (“Disclosure of Conflict of Interest”) and Bylaw 1.10 (“Dispute Resolution of the Synod”).

Having served on the Theology and Church Relations floor committee for the 2004 convention, and now having read through the Committee for Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) document that was recently published entitled: “CTCR Response to Expressions of Dissent” (2004-2006), I would like to offer you the following observations...

My initial response after reading the document was one of disappointment. The CTCR Response goes to great lengths attempting to justify the resolutions that were passed at our last convention, and almost universally implies that those expressing dissent have "misunderstood" the documents or resolutions in question. This is deeply disappointing, because we have missed a valuable opportunity to truly engage the actual concerns being raised by so many members of the Synod. Contrary to the implications of the CTCR Response, the dissent being expressed is quite valid and should not be summarily dismissed! The very ambiguity of the resolutions in question is what led to so many different “understandings” of what those resolutions had confessed. We should know by now that resolutions that make vague and potentially misleading statements will not contribute to the unity of our church in doctrine and practice.

Note: ¹ LCMS 2004 Handbook, Constitution Article VII, relation of Synod to its members, p. 14.