# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S178
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

178

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

The purpose behind the creation of non-candidate status
was to “establish appropriate designations for those who for
some reasons are not desirous of a call, or are in some way unable to fulfill a call” (Synod Board of Directors minutes June
1–3, 2000 re: agenda item 190—– Adoption of Bylaw Change
re Roster Status). The “Whereas” portions of the resolution
creating non-candidate status indicated that candidate status
should be “. . . reserved for those qualified individuals who are
desirous of receiving a call and are ready to reenter the active
roster. . .” (1998 Res. 7-16A).
Though an inactive member with non-candidate status and
in good standing had been “eligible to receive a call” (CCM Op.
09-2546), the service of such members in ministry situations was
subject to the requirement that
Non-candidate members are eligible to serve
in ministry situations upon approval of their
district presidents and according to guidelines
established by the Council of Presidents. (ibid.,
cited in 2016 Res. 12-03, referring to Synod Bylaw 2.11.2.3 [c])
Several overtures were combined and subsumed within
Res. 12-03 (Ov. 12-07, originating from Circuits 16 and 17 of
the Southeastern District; Ov. 12-08, from Our Savior Lutheran
Church, Carmi, IL [2016 Convention Workbook, p. 418]; and
Ov. 12-10 and 12-43, from Emmaus Lutheran Church, South
Bend, IN [idem, pp. 418 and 436].) as presented for consideration by the Synod in Convention. None of these overtures gave
any suggestion that the criteria for candidate status should be
deleted or changed, nor did they give any suggestion that noncandidate status should be eliminated. Rather, the focus of the
overtures dealt with allowing the extension of time for remaining in candidate status. Overture 12-07 specifically asserted a
level of unfairness in the amount of time then allowed to remain
in candidate status:
Whereas, Eligibility for candidate status for
many inactive pastors who have patiently waited, hoped, and prayed for a call back into active ministry and who otherwise meet the criteria
enumerated in Bylaw 2.11.2.2 (c) expires through
no fault of their own; and
Whereas, Expiration of eligibility for candidate
status for no other reason than the passage of
time spent faithfully waiting, hoping, and praying is very demoralizing and discouraging for the
pastor and his family (his wife in particular); and
Whereas, Reclassification to non-candidate status unnecessarily compounds the very real and
unjustifiable stigma already suffered by the pastor and his family associated with candidate status, incorrectly implying to prospective call committees that the pastor fails to meet the criteria
for continued candidate status (Bylaw 2.11.2.2
[c]); and
Whereas, Non-candidate status should be reserved only for those pastors who, given the
option of continuing candidate status, instead
choose non-candidate status or who fail to meet
the criteria for continuing candidate status (Bylaw 2.11.2.2 [c]), and not for those pastors who
2019 Convention Workbook

have patiently waited, hoped, and prayed for a
call back into active ministry and who otherwise
meet the criteria for continuing candidate status (Bylaw 2.11.2.2 [c])… (Overture 12-07, 2016
Convention Workbook, p. 418).
It is apparent that the overtures giving rise to Resolution
12-03 asserted no requirement that the criteria contained in
2.11.2.2 (c) should be altered or removed. In fact, clear statements within the overtures acknowledged and made reference
to the criteria such that there were individuals within the noncandidate status who, given the option for candidate status,
might not meet the criteria.
With the removal of non-candidate status for inactive
members, the effect of Res. 12-03 is to place each of these individuals immediately into candidate status. Both individuals in candidate status at the time Res. 12-03 was passed and
non-candidate individuals brought into candidate status at the
passage of Res.12-03 may now continue in candidate status during a period of ten years from the passage of this resolution,
which can then be extended over a period of five years thereafter
upon recommendation of their respective District President and
approval of three-fourths (75 percent) of the Council of Presidents. This is a change from the four-year period of candidate
status previously allowed (2013 Bylaw 2.11.2.2 [a]).
Annual reporting by individuals on candidate status to
their respective District President remains a requirement. The
District President remains responsible for evaluating annually
such an individual’s eligibility to continue on candidate status
[see Synod Bylaw 2.11.2.2 (b)] and for reviewing with the member, in a pastoral manner, the member’s status (2016 Res. 1202A). It is important to note that the criteria set forth toward
evaluating and reviewing an individual’s eligibility to continue
in candidate status are not exclusive or singularly determinative
as the bylaw clearly notes that those listed are “among criteria”
the District President should consider in annually evaluating an
individual’s continued eligibility. (That is, a deficiency relative
to a given criterion may be offset by a candidate’s fulfillment of
other criteria in favor of candidate status, whether those listed
in the bylaw or otherwise considered by the District President.)
Consequently, all individuals now assigned candidate status remain responsible for meeting the requirements of Synod
Bylaws 2.11.2.2 (b)–(c) and are subject to their respective District President’s annual evaluation that they exhibit sufficient
criteria (either by those listed in Bylaw 2.11.2.2 [c] or otherwise)
to merit such individual remaining in candidate status during
the period allowed by Synod.
Adopted November 18–19, 2016

2016 Res. 12-14 and the Constitutionality
of Referral Panels (16-2794)
The Secretary of the Synod posed three questions regarding the use of Referral Panels and 2016 Res. 12-14. Two of the
questions are based on CCM Op. 16-2791 and pertain to the
constitutionality of the use of Referral Panels as described in
Bylaws 2.14.5–2.14.5.1 (and, by possible implication, the use of
Referral Panels in Bylaw Sections 2.15, 2.16, and 2.17, as well).
The third question pertains to whether or not 2016 Res. 12-14
authorizes or requires the Bylaw 7.1.2 process it initiated to address the matter of Referral Panels in Bylaws 2.4.5 and 2.14.5.1.