# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S301 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 299 of that board, since one position would be elective and the other appointive. It would also allow for the same person to be elected to the Board for Higher Education and to be appointed to a college or university Board of Regents by members of the Board of Regents under the provisions of Bylaw 6.01 b 3. The majority of the commission believes that it is clear that the Synod deliberately chose to limit the positions which a single indi- vidual would be permitted to hold and the limitations are cited in Bylaw 3.75 a. Given these conditions, the majority of the commission con- cluded that the same person may not serve on both the Board of Regents and the Board for Higher Education even though that per- son serves in one position by virtue of his office as a Vice-President and in the other as the President's representative. It also concluded that any Vice-President other than the one sitting on the Board of Regents or, for that matter, anyone the President of the Synod chooses may be appointed to serve as the President’s representa- tive on the Board for Higher Education. The commission believes that Bylaw clarification should be provided and recommended that Bylaw 3.75 be referred to the Biue Ribbon Committee on Structure for consideration. Adopted Oct. 22, 1995 Congregational Constitution and Women’s Positions The Chairman of the District Constitution Committee had writ- ten to the Commission on Constitutional Matters, requesting that it review the constitution of a congregation. The commission re- sponded to the request by indicating that the guidelines for the con- stitution and bylaws of a congregation which had been prepared by the Commission on Constitutional Matters were just that, guide- lines, no more. As Constitution Art. VII states, ‘... with respect to the congregation’s right of self-government, it [Synod] is but an advisory body.” It further stated that in keeping with that, it has never been required that a statement about offices which women may not hold must be included in the bylaws of the congregation. This opinion was provided by the commission many years ago. Nevertheless, when questions about this matter have been received by the commission, it has always responded by saying that whether or not the statement is included, congregations are expected to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod, including any reso- lutions referring to the issue of positions which women may hold in the congregation. Adopted Oct. 22, 1995 District Vice-President Membership Requirement A letter had been received from a District Vice-President re- questing an opinion regarding his removal from office by the Dis- trict President because he was serving as the pastor of an indepen- dent congregation. It was his contention that Bylaw 4.52 c of the 1992 Handbook does not intend to forbid the pastor on the clergy roster serving an independent congregation from holding the office of Vice-President of the District, and that Bylaw 5.11 supports that argument since it specifically states that a Circuit Counselor may be chosen only from the “member congregations of the Circuit or from among the emeriti who hold membership in one of the mem- ber congregations of that Circuit” while such specific language is not found in Bylaw 4.51 a when giving the requirements for being elected to the office of President or Vice-President or Circuit Coun- selor. Bylaw 4.51 a, he stated does not intend to prohibit an emeri- tus or a pastor of an independent congregation from being elected to the office of President or Vice-President of a District. He noted that a pastor on the clergy roster serving an independent congrega- tion could be elected to the office of President of the District and that if that office were full-time, the pastor could then resign his call as pastor of the independent congregation, accept the office of President, and join a member congregation of the District. He would be treated the same as a pastor on the clergy roster serving an educational institution or as a District staff counselor, or the like. The commission began a discussion of the matter and before concluding it, emphatically stated that its concern and considera- tion was based on interpretation of the Bylaws of the Synod. Since the Bylaws of a District cannot be in contradiction to the Bylaws of the Synod, they must be interpreted in the context of the latter, i.e., the synodical Bylaws. With this understanding, the commission stated that it had drawn the following conclusions: 1. Bylaw 2.15 c allows for membership in an independent congre- gation as an exception for remaining on the clergy roster. You are, therefore, correct in concluding that you are on the clergy roster of the Synod while you are serving as the pastor of an in- dependent congregation. 2. The commission concludes, however, that it is not correct to equate the status of one who serves an independent congrega- tion with the status of an emeritus pastor. Bylaw 2.17 specifi- cally states, without exception, that to remain an emeritus pastor one must be a member of a member congregation of the Synod. 3. Bylaw 4.51 c (not 4.52 c) clearly states that “All officers and members of boards shall be members of member congregations upon assuming office and during the course of their tenure.” Bylaw 4.51 a does not nullify that requirement. 4. Bylaw 4.51 c does not differentiate between full or part-time officers. Consequently, if one is elected in either category, he is required to be and remain a member of a member congrega- tion upon assuming and during the course of his tenure. 5. It is true that one who serves an independent congregation and is elected to serve as District President could resign and transfer his membership to an LCMS congregation. Since all officers are to be members of LCMS member congregations, there is no reason to believe that if one is elected to be and wishes to serve as a Vice-President of the District he would not do likewise. In fact, the Bylaw argues against ever electing the pastor of an in- dependent congregation as an officer, whether that office be President, Counselor, or a Vice-President of the District. 6. By joining the independent congregation which he started with minority members of the congregation he formerly served, the pastor in question has forfeited his position as a Vice-President of the District. Adopted Oct. 22, 1995 Excommunication and Reconciliation Process In a letter signed by the head elder and the president of the church council of a congregation, the following questions had been posed for consideration by the Commission on Constitutional Mat- ters: 1. Based upon Bylaw 8.01, can an individual person who is a member of an LCMS congregation, but not a member of Synod itself, has not been excommunicated, and does not hold any po- sition in the Synod or any District or with any organization con- trolled by the Synod, compel a member of Synod to proceed through the dispute resolution process of chapter VIII of the By- laws? 2. Does a District President, under Art. XII of the Constitution or elsewhere in the Constitution or Bylaws, have the authority to excommunicate a person or declare the person excommunicated from a congregation when the congregation has not excommu- nicated the person, particularly in light of Art. VII of the Con- stitution? 3. Does the Secretary of the Synod or a District President have the authority to make the decision to bypass the reconciliation process of Bylaws 8.05 and 8.07 because one of the parties to the dispute states that he is not interested in reconciliation? Are there any circumstances where Bylaws 8.05 and 8.07 can be by- passed? In clarifying the background for the questions, the Secretary had pointed out that the pastor, and probably the church council, had placed some members of a congregation under the “minor ban.” These members had not been allowed to receive Holy Communion for almost a year, during which time the District President had met with the members and congregations officials to seek to resolve the issues. Finally, he had declared that what was reported to be the minor ban had become a de facto excommunication which would allow the members to utilize the dispute resolution process.