# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1981_S376
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPENDIX II

Constitutional Opinions

(We reprint some of the more important opinions issued by the Commission on Constitutional

Matters during the past biennium.)

Opinion re Procedures for Introduction
of New Hymnal

The Commission on Constitutional Matters was asked
whether the proposed production of the hymnal of the Synod
was not in conflict with the new Bylaws which call for the
submission of proposed hymnal materials to congregations for
exposure before adoption.

The commission concluded that this argument had been
advanced already at the convention, both in the floor commit-
tee andon the floor at the convention itself. Nevertheless, after
hearing and weighing the arguments, the delegates saw fit to
adopt Res. 3-01, apparently indicating thereby that the dele-
gates were of the opinion that sufficient exposure of these
materials had indeed been given in various ways.

Dec. 9, 1979

Opinion re Funding
of Work Among American Indians

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked
to determine whether the action of the Board of Directors in
adopting Item F-11 in regard to work among American Indians
in its meeting of Feb. 28—29, 1980, is in accord with the action
of the 1979 St. Louis convention on Res. 1-14A.

All members of the commission participated in the discus-
sion and decision except Dr. Herbert Mueller, who voluntarily
absented himself.

The commission holds that on the basis of the last two
resolves of Res. 1-14A the Board of Directors has the right to
continue the funding of the Indian Desk of LCUSA and the
National Indian Lutheran Board.

The commission holds that the Board of Directors may not
set a terminal date for the completion of the report of the
American Indian Advisory Council, since Res. 1-14A places no
terminal date on the completion of the study.

The commission understands that a report and recommen-
dations will be completed by the time of the 1981 convention
and that a report will be made to the convention; if the study is
not completed or if there are marked differences of opinion
among those charged with responsibilities under the 1979
resolution and under the Bylaws, the Synod in convention will
have the opportunity to speak to the issues.

The commission assumes that the Board of Directors
altered the terminal date of the funding from March 1, 1982, as
recommended by the American Indian Advisory Council and
the Board for Missions, to March 1, 1981, for budgetary reasons
and that funding will be continued until March 1982 if funds
are available.

Based on documentation and material submitted, the com-
mission is of the opinion that the declination of the amendment
to Res. 1-14A of the St. Louis convention has no real force or
effect on the questions at issue, since delegates obviously voted
against the proposed amendment for a variety of, and even
opposing, reasons. Indeed, the defeat of the amendment has
been cited in support of opposing positions.

May 2—3, 1980

375

Opinion re Seating of Delegates
at a District Convention

. In answer to four questions the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters adopted the following statements:

1. As the commission has pointed out often in the past, the
seating of uncertified Seminex graduates as pastor delegates
at synodical or District conventions is unconstitutional.

2. Voting participation by uncertified pastoral delegates at
a District convention could indeed have legal ramifications, as
the commission had already stated in a previous opinion
shared with the Synod.

3. When a motion to seat an uncertified pastor as a delegate
is offered to a convention, the District President should not
entertain such a motion but should rule it out of order on
constitutional grounds; such a ruling is unappealable because
itis based on a constitutional ruling made by the Synod itself
(see 1979 St. Louis Res. 5-11).

4. It is the specific responsibility of the synodical repre-
sentative to encourage the District President to make the
proper ruling from the chair and to support him by referring
also to previous rulings.

May 2, 1980

Opinion re Cases Before District
Commissions of Adjudication

In answer to five questions raised by a District Commission
of Adjudication, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
has replied as follows:

1. It would seem that individual laypersons have access to
the synodical procedures of adjudication only in cases of
excommunication (Bylaw 5.03 a), in cases which may result in
the expulsion of amember (congregation, pastor, teacher) from
the Synod (Bylaw 5.11 ff.), and in cases involving their own
synodical employment (Bylaws 5.21 d, 5.25 d). A layperson’s
principal forum for complaints against the pastor and against
his congregation is the congregation itself. He may also appeal
for assistance to the Circuit Counselor and to the District
President. Except for the three cases noted above, access to
Commissions of Adjudication is limited in Bylaw 5.01 to
members of the Synod as defined in Article V of the Synod’s
Constitution.

2. Charges that deal with “future acts” of the pastor or of a
congregation cannot be entertained since only God knows
what the future holds.

3. A parishioner may indeed seek expulsion of the pastor
from the Synod by the District President (not by the Commis-
sion of Adjudication) on the charge that an ecumenical
wedding has taken place in the congregation. It is obvious,
however, that a determination must be made (1) whether the
act was actually performed and (2) if so, whether it is an act
which could result in expulsion from the Synod (Bylaw 5.11).

4. The same applies with respect toa charge that a Baptism
was performed in a formal worship service by a pastor of a
church body with whom the Synod is not in fellowship.

5. If a Commission of Adjudication does not have jurisdic-