# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S193
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Ministry Program (which does not lead to a degree at either seminary), the Residential Alternate Route program, the General Pastor
Certification Program, or a program of studies through the Ethnic
Immigrant Institute of Theology or the Center for Hispanic Studies. Among the auxiliary office programs, the Director of Church
Ministries Program at Concordia University Wisconsin leads to a
certificate, not a degree, but nonetheless also to certification for this
commissioned ministry.
Question 2:

Other than pursuant to the colloquy process outlined
in Bylaw 3.10.3, may the faculty of an authorized
educational institution of Synod declare a candidate
qualified for a first call, where such candidate is not
a graduate of such institution? If so, are there any
limitations on such authority?

Opinion: The answer to Question 1 also answers the first part of
Question 2. The commission has clarified the meaning of the term
graduate to mean “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]). In this sense of the term graduate, as regards the
individuals discussed in Bylaw 2.7.1, the faculty of an educational
institution of the Synod may declare qualified for a given office
of the ministry only a graduate of a program of their respective
institution that is approved by the Synod to admit graduates to the
respective office of ministry. Such a program could be a joint program between two institutions of the Synod operating through their
respective boards of control, with the faculty of the appropriate
institution (that is, of the participating institution authorized by the
Synod to prepare graduates for the particular ministry in question)
declaring the candidate qualified for a call.
The certification of a candidate as qualified for placement includes
not only the satisfactory completion of an academic program but
also the factors indicated in Bylaw 2.8.1 (b) and (c), and in the case
of seminary students, (d). The appropriateness of a faculty certifying a candidate rests, therefore, not only on the faculty’s connection
with a given academic program approved by the Synod as leading to ordained or commissioned ministry but also on that faculty’s
ability to certify the candidate’s fitness for ministry in these other
regards. The faculty of “the respective educational institution”
(Bylaw 2.7.1), that is, “the appropriate faculty” (Bylaw 2.8.1 [c]),
must know the candidate well enough to certify that the candidate
has indicated “complete dedication to the ministry and evidenced
a readiness for service in the church” (Bylaw 2.8.1 [b]) and that
the candidate “will meet all personal, professional, and theological
requirements of those who hold the office of ministry to which the
individual aspires” (Bylaw 2.8.1 [c]).
As to the second part of Question 2, supra, “limitations on such
authority,” the commission finds that the instituting of courses of
study is to be coordinated by the Concordia University System (Bylaws 3.6.6.1; 3.6.6.5 [c]; and 3.6.6.6 [c]) and as to the seminaries,
by their respective Board of Regents (Bylaws 3.10.5.1 and 3.10.5.5.
[c]), with new routes subject to review by the Pastoral Formation
Committee and approval by the convention (Bylaw 3.10.4.1–2)
prior to their implementation by the seminaries.
The commission refers Bylaw sections 2.7 and 2.8 to the COH for
review in light of this opinion and potential related questions.

193

Additional Requirements for Convention
Attendance (22-2978)
Minutes of April 8–9, 2022
By an email of Jan. 13, 2022, an individual member of the Synod,
an ordained minister, requested an opinion on the following question, with regard to which, pursuant to Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), input
was solicited from the President, Board of Directors, and Chief
Administrative Officer of the Synod, as well as from the presidents
and boards of directors of the districts of the Synod. The commission replies as follows:
Question:

Is it consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod for a district to select a convention
venue that forbids admission of delegates unless
they satisfy certain additional requirements (e.g.,
presenting proof of coronavirus vaccination status,
negative test results, or wearing a mask)?

Opinion: Const. Art. XII 10 establishes that at the meetings of districts of the Synod, “every member congregation or multi-congregation parish is entitled to two votes, one of which is to be cast by
its pastor and the other by the lay delegate elected and deputed by
the congregation or parish.” This belongs to the realm of right and
not merely of privilege.
Bylaws specify in very broad terms how a district is to prepare accommodations for a convention of its congregations. Bylaw 4.2.1
(a) indicates that the conventions of the districts are governed by
the Bylaws of the Synod for its conventions insofar as these are
applicable. Among these, Bylaw 3.1.9 (j) describes the ways by
which a date and site of a Synod convention can be determined.
Details are few; where a district suggests a site for the Synod convention, care is taken to determine “minimum requirements” from
the convention manager so that the number of delegates and facilities required can be accommodated (1969 Res. 11-09). It may
be inferred that for a district convention the arrangements must
reasonably accommodate the delegates, voting and advisory, entitled to attend (Const. Art. XII 10). What must be accommodated
is a meeting of all delegates as “a single official gathering in one
room or area” (Robert’s [11th ed.], 97:11–14), the “constitutional
convocation” and presence of a quorum (Const. Art. XII 14) in a
“churchly deliberative assembly,” a “context allowing full and free
debate, fellowship, and personal interaction” (CCM Op. 20-2938).
Within these broad bounds, Const. Art. XII 12 specifies that “the
districts are independent in the administration of affairs which
concern their district only, it being understood, however, that such
administration shall always serve the interests of the Synod.” Any
choice of venue brings with it inherent burdens for delegates, some
predictable and some not, which may even be suffered unevenly.
In making of a number of unavoidable choices about convention
venue, the district balances the interests of all its congregations
and, in a manner serving their collective interest, as the Constitution requires, facilitates their convention.
Although in a different context, the issue of whether a burden
placed on voting members with respect to convention participation
is appropriate has been tested by this commission. In Op. 12-2649,
following previous opinions, the commission found that “delegate
attendance at a district convention cannot be contingent upon payment of a registration fee.” With regard to that specific question,
the commission found that the presenting issue was directly addressed in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, so that it
2023 Convention Workbook