# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S192
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

192

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
least two candidates when presented to the President
for his concurrence?

Opinion: Regarding the initial appointment (as opposed to reappointment) of the chief executive of a synodwide corporate entity,
Bylaws 3.6.1.5 (a)(1) and 3.3.1.3 (f) speak of the President of the
Synod and the entity’s governing board engaging in “consultation”
to reach “mutual concurrence” on a “slate of candidates.” The first
sentence of Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (a)(2) requires further that “the appropriate governing board and the President of the Synod shall act expeditiously to fill the vacancy.”
Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (a)(2) (the content of which is due, along with [b]
[1–2], to 2004 Res. 7-11A) contains also a second sentence (“This
governing board shall present its list of candidates to the President.”), which is the remnant of a longer sentence from the two
precipitating overtures (2004 Ov. 7-36, 37) that concluded with
the additional words, dropped by the floor committee: “within six
months after the vacancy in the executive position occurs.” The
practically vestigial remainder, suggesting at most the initiative of
the board in identifying potential candidates and presenting them
to the President, adds little to the consideration of this question. It
must be comprehended within the process described primarily in
Bylaws 3.6.1.5 (a)(1) and 3.3.1.3 (f)—one of “consultation” leading to “mutual concurrence” on a “slate of candidates,” in which
the board and President “shall act expeditiously to fill the vacancy.”
Here, the commission understands “slate of candidates” integrally,
as a term of art, denoting the collection of those in candidacy for
one or more positions but not requiring a specific number or even
plurality of them for each position, apart from some explicit requirement otherwise. Such an explicit requirement does occur elsewhere in the Bylaws—for example, in preparation of slates for a
Synod convention, at the time of which a free-flowing conversation
among all participants leading to “mutual concurrence” on a slate
of candidates would be inconvenient (Bylaw 3.12.3.6 [a])—but not
here.
Here, just such a consultation between the board and President,
leading to a point of mutual concurrence, is required. Contrary to
what might be inferred by an incorrect leap from the second sentence of Bylaw 3.6.1.5 (a)(2), or by false analogy to other processes, such as in Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2 (b)(7), this process is not simply a
“unidirectional” one in which the board provides the President with
a list of candidates and the President strikes names from that list.
Envisioned instead is a continued dialogue by which the board and
President jointly construct—by a process not specified in further
detail in the bylaw—a slate of candidates in which they can mutually concur.
The process moves on to an appointment by the board when and
only when the President and board, after consultation, reach such
mutual concurrence—not on the names of one or more remaining candidates, severally, but on a slate of candidates, integrally.
Should the President and the board mutually agree on a slate consisting of a single candidate, the board may proceed to appoint
that candidate; should the President or the board disagree with
proceeding to appointment from a slate consisting of one candidate—perhaps even on the basis of an impression that such a slate
is “defective,” as giving the board no actual choice between two alternatives, regardless of and without judgment on the suitability of
the single candidate—the consultation would need to be resumed
until such mutual concurrence can be reached on that or another
slate. In this consultation, both the board and the President would
need to act responsibly, within their respective duties and in the
2023 Convention Workbook

interest of the Synod (Bylaw 1.5.2 [b]), and “expeditiously,” eagerly seeking a slate on which “mutual concurrence” can indeed be
achieved, to fill the vacancy.
Noting potential unclarities and concern regarding functionality of
the parallel process for interim appointments, the commission refers this matter for study to the COH.

Faculty Declaration of Qualification for First Call
for Graduate of Respective Institution (22-2977)
Minutes of April 8–9, 2022
By an email of Jan. 11, 2022, a member congregation of the Synod
requested an opinion of the commission on the following questions,
with regard to which, pursuant to Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), input was solicited from the President of the Synod, the presidents of Synod
universities and seminaries, the executive director of the LCMS
Office of Pastoral Education, and the president of the Concordia
University System. The commission replies as follows:
Background: Synod Bylaw 2.7.1 provides:
A graduate of an authorized educational institution of the
Synod must be declared qualified for a first call and recommended by the faculty of the respective educational institution before the effective date of the first call to service in the
church, as assigned by the Council of Presidents acting as
the Board of Assignments as provided in Bylaw section 2.9.
Question 1:

Does the term graduate (with respect to an authorized educational institution of the Synod) include
any persons other than those who have received an
earned academic degree from that institution (or
from any previously existing institution to which
the current institution is the legal successor-ininterest)? If so, what other persons are included as
graduates?

Opinion: Many of the above-noted individuals responded to the
commission’s request for input, and the commission thanks each
for his contribution.
In addressing itself to the sense of the term graduate in Bylaw
2.7.1, the commission finds that this term cannot be defined in isolation from its context in the Bylaws of the Synod. The commission’s opinion therefore relies on the entirety of Bylaw sections 2.7
and 2.8 (although it addresses only those individuals whose certification as qualified for ministry is addressed by Bylaw 2.7.1—not
those, for example, received via colloquy).
In the context of Bylaw sections 2.7 and 2.8, the term graduate
functions not simply as an equivalent for “one who has ‘received
an earned academic degree,’” as the question seemed to imply, but
also for “one who will have, at the effective time of first call, ‘satisfactorily completed the prescribed course of studies’ and ‘received
[a] diploma[ ]’ in a program approved by the Synod to lead to qualification for ordained or commissioned ministry” (Bylaw 2.8.1 [a]).
These passages are clearly parallel, so that the more precise sense
of the latter must be understood to impart a specific sense to the
former term graduate.
Adding to this interpretive context, historically and in a variety of
programs, faculties of the seminaries, colleges, and universities of
the Synod have certified as qualified for first placement many individuals who have received theological or vocational diplomas that
were not equated to or connected with academic degrees. Examples for ordained ministry include those who complete the Specific