# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S100
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

100

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

1. Response to a Request for an Opinion on “AtWill” Called Workers
In a February 11, 2016, letter to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), the Rev. Dr. David P. E.
Maier, president of the Michigan District, asked for a CTCR
response to two questions. The questions were asked in accordance with (2013) Bylaw 1.10.5(b), which states that in a dispute resolution process “the District President may also ask
for an opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
(CCM) or the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
(CTCR).” According to this bylaw, the CTCR is to respond
within 30 days.
The questions are:
••

Can there be such a thing as a “called worker” who is
also an “at-will” employee at one of Synod’s universities, specifically Concordia University in Ann Arbor,
MI?

••

Can an “at-will” employee who is called be terminated without cause?

CTCR Response
While clearly teaching the divine institution of the Office
of the Holy Ministry (John 20:21–23; 1 Cor. 12:29; Rom. 10:15;
James 3:1), the New Testament is largely silent or only generally
descriptive regarding many specific practical details and procedures about that ministry, such as how pastors were selected or
called, actual responsibilities, length of service, and so forth.
Similarly, the Confessions have a rather narrow focus regarding
many practical aspects of the ministry.
In light of this, the CTCR has stated: “Although the divine
character of the call is primary, the human activity by which
the divine call is issued is not without importance” (Theology
and Practice of “the Divine Call” [2003], 27). The Commission
adds that “an appropriate use of ministerial reason is needed to
devise policies, procedures, and rites that can best express and
carry out the theology of the divine call into the pastoral office”
(Divine Call, 30). While special attention is given to the call into
the pastoral office, these points are valid for all calls.
Thus, we may speak of two principles for consideration regarding calls. First is the divine character of the call. Second is
the practical need for the church to apply its theology in ways
that are able to address actual circumstances and needs.
In accordance with these two basic principles, our response
to the two questions follows:
1.

Yes. A called worker at one of Synod’s universities
can also be an at-will employee in The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod in specialized fields of
service.

The Synod has recognized that at times the church’s need
for divinely called individuals with particular gifts or specialized skills “is best met by something less than an open-ended
call” (Divine Call, 39). Examples are numerous, but several will
suffice. Elected synodical officers are called to definite terms.
Missionary personnel are typically called to serve with the stipulation that their ongoing service requires that funding contingencies be met. Called workers on the Synod’s staff are solemnly
called but may be relieved of their responsibilities at any given
time, with or without cause.
2019 Convention Workbook

When a called worker will be classified as “at-will,” it is incumbent that the worker be informed of this at the time the call
is issued.
2.

Yes. By definition, if a worker is called with at-will
status, the call can be terminated without cause.

Adopted by the CTCR February 19, 2016

2. Opinion on Two Questions about Laity and
Clergy (Request from President Harrison)
On February 25, 2016, President Matthew C. Harrison
made a formal request for a response to two questions: “1. Are
the Word of God and the saving Gospel effective only when
spoken by a pastor? 2. Do the Scriptures, Lutheran Confessions
and the public doctrine of the LCMS (particularly Walther’s
Church and Office) allow laymen to carry out the specific functions of the pastoral office (public absolution, public preaching
and administration of the sacraments in the divine service) under the sole proviso that this is done ‘under the oversight of a
pastor’?” The CTCR’s opinion seeks to maintain the proper balance and healthy tension found in Walther’s Church and Office,
which affirms the responsibilities of both the royal priesthood
and the Office of Public Ministry. The CTCR adopted the opinion at its final meeting of the previous triennium (April 2016). It
was commended for reading, study, and discussion in 2016 Res.
5-13, but was not included in the 2016 Convention Workbook.
We have therefore included it in the Appendix at this time. It can
be downloaded at http://www.lcms.org/ctcr.

3. Request for Opinions from South Wisconsin
District President
In the 2013–2016 triennium, the CTCR received two requests for opinions from the President of the South Wisconsin
District. First, in December 2014, the CTCR received a request
for an opinion on the nature of calls to LCMS clergy serving as
professors at CUS schools. Second, in March 2015, the South
Wisconsin District president requested an opinion on questions
related to the administration of the Lord’s Supper to shut-ins.
The Commission continues its work on these opinions and
hopes to complete them before the end of this triennium.

4. Request for an Opinion from Minnesota South
and North Districts
In July of 2018, the Secretary of the LCMS, Dr. John Sias,
passed on a request from the Minnesota South and North Districts for the CTCR to evaluate and revisit the guidance offered
in the CTCR’s 1998 “Opinion on Conditional Calls” (1998 CW,
p. 51). This opinion discourages background checks conducted
after a divine call has been accepted, thus, in effect, making the
call “conditional upon” the result of the background check. The
CTCR has assigned this to one of its committees and intends to
address it as soon as possible.

F. Expressions of Dissent
Bylaw 1.8 from the LCMS Handbook provides a process for
orderly “[d]issent from the doctrinal position of the Synod as
expressed in its resolutions and doctrinal statements.” That process involves, first, discussion “within the fellowship of peers,”
and thereafter the dissent is to be “brought to the attention of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations” (1.8.2).