# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S315
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 313

On March 9, 1997, the Commission on Constitutional Matters con-
sidered the requests for opinions contained in your letter of March 1,
1997. Your first question asks, “Exactly what is entailed in the District
President’s responsibility to ‘advise the congregations of his District as
to the calling of pastors and teachers’ (Bylaw 4.73)?”

In response, the commission states that it believes the Bylaw is self-
explanatory and that since the areas in which a District President may
advise the congregation in these circumstances vary from congregation
to congregation, it is difficult, if not impossible, to improve upon the
clear meaning of the words.

You have also asked, “Is the District President constitutionally em-
powered to edit a vacant congregation’s call list by refusing to provide
personal information on some individuals, even when that information
is specifically requested by the congregation?”

In response to this question, the answer is no, except that he has a
right to delete any information which might subject the District Presi-
dent or the District to legal liability.

You also asked, “Can a congregation rightfully call an individual
whose name does not appear on a call list received from the District
President?”

Since the Synod is only advisory to the congregation with respect to
self-government, the answer to this question is yes, provided the indi-
vidual is in good standing on the synodical roster, i.e., neither restricted
or suspended.

Finally, you asked, “Do the synodical Constitution and Bylaws in
any way preclude the participation of the ministerium in the call
process, i.e., the suggesting of names to lay members of a vacant con-
gregation?”

In response, the commission would observe that this matter of ad-
vising congregations in the calling of pastors and teachers is specifi-
cally assigned to the District President as part of his calling, his kleros.
While the Constitution and Bylaws do not specifically preclude the min-
isterium from participation in the call process, they nowhere identify
this activity as part of their calling, their kleros. Any further response to
this issue should be solicited from the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations, which may have carried out a study of the term kleros
in relation to this matter as it applies to the ministerium.

Adopted March 7, 1997

Teachers Eligible for Election to District
Board of Directors and Other Offices

A District President indicated that in the election of teachers to
boards and commissions of the District, it had always been assumed
that such teachers were to be ministers of religion, commissioned, that
is, rostered as advisory members. There is a recognition that there are a
number of lay teachers who have graduated from synodical schools and
are eligible for synodical membership, but have opted not to join the
Synod as rostered members. In view of their preparation and activity, it
was suggested that the term “teacher” might also include these persons
as eligible for membership on the boards or commissions of the Dis-
trict. The Commission on Constitutional Matters was asked to provide
clarification on this matter. In response, the commission stated the fol-
lowing:

At its meeting on March 7, 1997, the Commission on Constitutional
Matters considered your question regarding the eligibility of teacher
graduates of synodical schools being eligible for teacher positions on
boards or commissions of the District. It was pointed out that under the
present District Handbook, the position of teacher has been understood
to be commissioned ministers of religion on the roster of the Synod.

In its consideration, the commission first noted that the composi-
tion of a District board or commission is determined by the District it-
self. The Bylaws do not specify either the number or classification of
board or commission members.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters would, however, main-
tain that references to teachers serving on boards or commissions at the
national level are references to commissioned ministers of religion on
the roster of the Synod. Those not on the roster, though eligible for ros-
ter status but not choosing such, are classified as laypersons. The com-
mission would therefore believe that, in order to avoid confusion, the
term teacher in District Bylaws is to be regarded as a reference to com-
missioned ministers of religion on the roster of the Synod. This is con-
sistent with the principle that the District is the Synod in that place.

If a District wished to include lay teachers as eligible for service on
boards or commissions in a category other than lay, it might wish to do

so through amendment of its Bylaws establishing that category, specif-
ically stating that a certain number of the lay members are to be lay
teachers, or do so in some other manner. It must, however, recognize
that the term teacher is understood in a technical sense to refer to a per-
son in that category of commissioned ministers of religion on the roster
of the Synod.

Adopted March 7, 1997

Full-Time Position of District President

A fax request was received regarding the possibility of a District
President holding a full-time position as the District President, but
retaining a call to a congregation as well. A number of questions
were included in the request regarding an opinion, all of which
might be subsumed under the final question, “What precludes a
man from remaining called by a congregation while filling the
elected office of District/Synod President?”

The Secretary prepared a response to this request which was cir-
culated to the members of the commission, with the request that
they respond with concerns if there was disagreement with the re-
sponse provided. The response which was provided stated:

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has received the over-
ture to be sent to the Southern District regarding the full-time position
of the District President and the possibility of his retaining a call to a
congregation with duties being adjusted to allow him, in effect, to carry
out both positions. It also notes the multiple questions which precede
the proposed resolution.

In response, rather than speaking to the questions individually, the
commission would observe that the realm to which it must restrict it-
self is that of the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod
and their interpretation. A review of the Constitution and Bylaws makes
it clear that they are silent with respect to the issues raised.

The commission would, however, note that by definition, a call to a
full-time position would not allow for an additional call, even a part-
time one elsewhere. If a District convention were to adopt a resolution
allowing for a call to a part-time position, it would, by that action, be, in
effect, stating that the position of the District President is not a full-time
position. Such action would also require amendment of the Bylaws to
reflect that fact or else the convention would be approving an action
contrary to its own Bylaws.

Many of the questions which you have posed have, at least in part.
been addressed in a document of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations entitled, The Ministry: Offices, Procedures, and
Nomenclature. If you do not have a copy, it is available from Concordia
Publishing House and has the number 9-24 24.

If there are theological questions which have not been addressed by
this response, they should be addressed to the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations.

No response was received and therefore the response was for-
warded to the pastor as the response of the commission to his re-
quest.

Adopted March 7, 1997

District Lay Ministry Program

In its 1997 Convention Workbook, a District had received a pro-
posal for the development of a District program for lay ministry
certification for lay workers within the District. A pastor had asked
for an opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters as to
whether this proposal was in conflict with chapter VII of the By-
laws of the Synod. This request for an opinion was followed up by
the notation that an opinion was also desired on the interpretation
of 1995 synodical Res. 3-07A as it related to Wichita convention
Res. 3-05B. The opinion was expressed that the later resolution
might nullify the original one, on which the proposal for the Dis-
trict lay ministry program was based. General agreement was
reached on the proposed response, which indicated that the Con-
stitution and Bylaws of the Synod were silent regarding such pro-
grams as those proposed by the District, that Res. 3-07A of the
1995 convention did not nullify Res. 3-05B of the Wichita con-
vention, and that any theological concerns related to the proposed
utilization of those lay ministers certified by the District program
should be referred to the Commission on Theology and Church Re-
lations. Ultimately, the response which was made to the request for