# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S208
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

208

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Notes
1. The bylaw change adding non-candidate status arose
from a request from the Council of Presidents and was ultimately enacted by the Synod Board of Directors June 1, 2000,
at the direction of the 1998 Convention of the Synod (1998 Res.
7-16A). This resolution, which is indicative of the reason for
the distinction then made between candidate and non-candidate
members, read:
Whereas, “Candidate status” is a designation
for those who are eligible to perform the duties
of any of the offices of ministry specified in Bylaw 2.15 but who are not currently performing
those duties on a regular basis and who are not
emeriti; and
Whereas, Candidate status is meant to be a
short-term or temporary designation which is
not to exceed two years unless an extension is
granted by the Council of Presidents; and
Whereas, There are a large number of requests
from those on candidate status for extensions
beyond the two year time limit; and
Whereas, Candidate status, in practice, has resulted in persons being able to retain roster status in spite of an inability or unwillingness to
receive or accept a call into active service; and
Whereas, The result of this practice has caused
many who have candidate status to become in
some way stigmatized, even though they are
in all ways eligible to receive a call, to serve in
professional church work, and it is their hope to
again serve their Lord in ministry; therefore be it
Resolved, That the “candidate” status be reserved for those qualified individuals who are
desirous of receiving a call and are ready to reenter the active roster; and be it further
Resolved, That the Council of Presidents be directed to evaluate those who currently are designated with candidate status and 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; and be it finally
Resolved, That the Council of Presidents be directed to establish guidelines and proposed Bylaws and amendments which, per Bylaw 15.01 2,
will be drafted by the Secretary of the Synod,
reviewed by the CCM, and adopted by a twothirds majority vote of the Board of Directors.
This is to be reported to the church and to the
2001 synodical convention by the Secretary of
the Synod.
2. Seminary Board of Regents—Hyatt (Ag. 1739, 1744,
A-B): An opinion expressed by the Commission regarding the
eligibility for Dr. Hyatt to serve on more than one seminary
Board of Regents had been questioned. In response to this question, the Commission stated that the issue which faced it at the
inception of discussion on this issue was whether the position on
2019 Convention Workbook

the Board of Regents was one of designation or appointment. The
Commission felt that language in Bylaw 6.01 did not call for appointment but designation, and that Bylaw 2.73 refers only to appointed positions. A designation can be changed at will since no
term is specified. There is no implication of permanency in that
term, whereas appointments are generally for specified periods of
time. It is the feeling of the Commission that the President has
resolved the issue in his own mind and that Dr. Hyatt is considered to be designated, not appointed, in those positions where
he casts a vote and serves as a liaison in those seminary board
positions where he is not granted a vote. The Commission further recognizes that the question which has been raised involves
a matter of semantics. Because of the importance of the question, as well as other ambiguities, the Commission will be asking the Commission on Structure to urgently consider language
clarification of the bylaws which are involved. (CCM Minutes,
May 3–4, 1985)
3. CCM Ag. 1511 (Sept. 11–12, 1981) held as follows:
249. Membership in Two Districts (Ag. 1511):
The Secretary had written to Rev. Arthur Geidel
of Palisades Park, New Jersey, with carbon copies to Presidents George Bornemann and Walter Zeile, that a pastor accepting a call to one
District becomes a member of that District and
cannot hold membership in another District in
which he functions also as an institutional missionary. The Commission ratified that reply.
This ruling preceded the 1986 development of Bylaw 2.41,
subparagraphs [a] and [b] of which are the equivalent of 2016
Bylaws 2.12.1.2 and 2.12.1.3. Instead of these, 1981 Bylaw 5.33
(similar to 2016 Bylaw 4.4.7) alone applied:
A pastor or a teacher accepting a call to a member or nonmember congregation in a sister District, or to an institution served by such District,
shall immediately report such decision to his
District President and ask for a transfer of membership. The District President shall forward
such transfer to the President of the sister District. Upon receipt of the transfer and of a request for installation from the pastor or teacher,
the District President of the sister District shall
install or authorize installation of such pastor
or teacher.
That the membership of a minister whose calls cross district lines should wind up in that district in which he was most
recently called might be the conclusion from Bylaw 4.4.7 alone.
Because, however, such a conclusion does not resolve the conflict inherent between, in this case, Bylaws 2.12.1.2 and 2.12.1.3
it can hardly be definitively recommended.
4. The request for reconsideration uses the term “individual member” apparently to refer to a member under district
supervision. An individual member, in Bylaw terms, refers to
Ministers of Religion—Ordained and Commissioned, as opposed to congregational (voting) members of the Synod. Const.
Art. XIII and Bylaw section 2.14 deal with individual and congregational members without distinction. The “individual” is
therefore dropped in this response.
5. See, for example, 1971 Bylaws 5.11–5.13, Handbook, pp.
114–115, in which the intent is the same as 1956 but the outline
is much clearer: