# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S305
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ed

—~

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 303

tion of the pastor at a congregation in “my” District, to serve on
behalf of that congregation as a missionary-at-large in another
District? Is there a policy, plan, or guideline that covers this
type of situation?

2. What are the implications of 1992 Handbook Bylaw 2.15 a-j?
Does Bylaw 2.41 apply? Is this a “status call’? What is the re-
lationship between congregational autonomy and the responsi-
bility of a District President in relationship to that congregation
and other congregations, and/or Districts of the Synod?

3. How can responsible ecclesiastical supervision in ministry be
carried out by this District President when the missionary-at-
large is called by a congregation, not by the District or Synod
Mission Board, while that missionary lives in another geo-
graphic District of the LCMS over 1,000 miles away from the
calling, sponsoring congregation? Is there a way this can be
worked out?

In conversations it was understood by all that the congregation
of the first District had agreed to take full responsibility for the
ministry of the pastor serving as their missionary-at-large in the
other District. They indicated that they would provide liability cov-
erage for him as a member of their staff, seeking to expand a vari-
ety of ministries in a different geographic territory.

After reviewing the letter from the District President and in spe-
cific reference to the questions which it contained, the commission
decided to respond as follows:

As it considered the questions posed in your letter, the commission
noted that there is nothing in the Constitution or Bylaws which envi-
sions a situation of the kind described. However, neither does it appear
that there is anything which explicitly inhibits it.

In reviewing various Bylaws which might’have a bearing on the
matter, the commission perused Bylaws 2.15, 2.19, 2.4], and 4.71 in
particular. Bylaw 2.15, as you know, identifies positions which a min-
ister may hold for eligibility for active status. Bylaw 2.19 deals with
candidate status and is relevant only to the extent that it defines re-
quirements for candidate status held unless and until there is an instal-
lation into one of the positions of active ministry. Bylaw 2.41 deals with
matters relating to the District in which membership is held. Bylaw 4.71
speaks to the requirement for installation authorization by the District
President.

Bylaw 2.41 seems to be of particular significance as it recognizes
implicitly that certain problems could arise in relation to determining
where District membership must be held. Several of the provisions con-
tain statements which call for the exercise of discretion by District Pres-
idents involving mutual agreement in determining what the proper ap-
proach should be toward exercising ecclesiastical supervision and by
which District President it should be exercised.

In view of the position outlined above, it would appear that some
of the concems expressed could possibly be dealt with by mutual agree-
ment of the District Presidents involved. That, however, leaves a major
question to be answered. That question is whether the call which has
been issued is to be regarded as a “status call.”

The matter of “status calls” has been of concern to the Synod, par-
ticularly since the 1970s when a large number of “status calls” were is-
sued. These dealt especially with professors teaching at “Seminex” who
were called as assistant pastors in congregations in order to maintain
their membership on the roster of the Synod. Sometimes these congre-
gations were far removed in distance from the location of “Seminex”
where these men were actually serving. Responding to an inquiry from
the Council of Presidents at that time about such status calls, the Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters stated in a ruling issued on February
12, 1974, that status calls were not proper under the Bylaws of the
Synod which had been adopted at New Orleans in 1973 identifying
those positions which were eligible for active roster status.

As stated, the question which appears to require an answer is
whether the call issued by the congregation to carry out a radio min-
istry and serve as missionary-at-large in another District is a status call.
Does it fall into one of the categories identified in Bylaw 2.15?

The commission believes that in order for it to reply objectively to
at least the first of these questions, there are some issues involved which
only the CTCR can answer. It is, therefore, forwarding an inquiry to
that commission, believing that only after it has received a response will
it be in a position to provide a more definitive answer.

Adopted March 28, 1996

Licensing of Laymen and Their Ordination

A seminary faculty had posed a question for the Commission
on Constitutional Matters which asked

Does Res. 3-07A (1995) limit the program to those men licensed at

the time of the resolution, or does it foresee the continuation of the li-

censing practice and the program?

The resolution to which reference was made called upon the
faculties of the seminaries to develop a course of study for layper-
sons serving in a Word and Sacrament ministry under licensing by
the District President. The resolution required that such persons
apply to the seminaries for that program within two years. It was
the seminary’s contention that the resolution was ambiguous, re-
sulting in the question which was posed.

In response, the commission reached the following conclusion:

The commission agrees that the resolution is ambiguous and could
be interpreted to refer to an existing state or could be understood in the
sense of present or future action, that of being licensed without refer-
ence to the time when that occurs.

The commission cannot know what the thinking of defegates was
in adopting the resolution. However, it is recognized that the need for li-
censing men to serve in a Word or Word and Sacrament ministry is po-
tentially ongoing. It is logical then to construe the resolution as having
an ongoing effect, speaking to the future as well as to a past circum-
stance, envisioning an ongoing process. Furthermore, it should be noted
that 1995 Res. 3-07A contains no reference to 1989 Res. 3-05B by
which the process for licensing was established and approved.

The commission therefore concludes that 1995 Res. 3-O7A was not
intended to replace or to nullify 1989 Res. 3-05B and does not limit the
program referred to in 1995 Res. 3-07A to those men licensed at the
time of adoption of the resolution.

Adopted May 8, 1996

Limitation of Church Council Membership

The chairman of a District constitutional committee had writ-
ten to the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the re-
quirement in a congregation for the deaf which limited member-
ship on the church council to persons with hearing impairment. It
asked whether this might not possibly be reverse discrimination. It
noted that in Bylaw 2.03 c of the Handbook there is a statement
which says

It shall be the policy of the Synod to decline membership to con-
gregations whose constitutions deny membership or other conyrega-
tional privileges to any Christian because of race or ethnic origin.

It was felt that the limitation in the proposed constitution of the
congregation would constitute a similar prohibition to membership.

The commission considered the concern which had been ex-
pressed and made the following observations:

a. The commission is cognizant of the scope of its authority.
namely, that of interpreting the Constitution, Bylaws. and reso-
lutions of the Synod. It is therefore uncomfortable in any at-
tempt to broaden the interpretation of Bylaw 2.03 c beyond the
obvious meaning of the words contained therein.

b. The commission is not aware of the reason for the proposed
limitation, but assumes that it has been included because of a
concem for proper and effective communication with members
of a congregation which consists either totally, or for the most
part, of persons who are hearing impaired.

c. Ifthe goal is one of communication, the commission would sug-
gest that a better, God-pleasing approach might be to use a
phrase such as only hearing impaired persons or persons able
to communicate with them shall hold an office on the Church
Council.

d. The commission recognizes that in the area of self-government,
the Synod is only advisory. Consequently, it is reluctant to iden-
tify other areas than those specified in the Bylaws as possible
reasons for rejecting a congregational constitution. We note. fer
example, that the argument regarding discrimination. if it is to
be broadened, could apply to congregations which deny