# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S316
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

314 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

an opinion by the pastor and another who asked similar questions
was as follows:

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked to
render an opinion as to whether the proposed lay ministry program
to be offered for consideration to the District convention was con-
trary to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

Although section VII of the Bylaws of the Synod relates to cer-
tified church worker, lay, such section does not directly address the
proposal here in question. Indeed, the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod are silent as to the issue. However, Res. 3-05B of the
1989 convention of the Synod entitled “To Adopt Recommenda-
tions of Lay Worker Study Committee Report as Amended” as well
as Res. 3-07A of the 1995 convention of the Synod entitled “To
Establish Procedure by Which Laymen Licensed to Perform Func-
tions of the Pastoral Office be Called and Ordained into the Minis-
terium of LCMS” do address the question before the commission.

The question posed to the commission was received by the Sec-
retary of the Commission on March 24, 1997, and an opinion by
the commission was requested by April 4, 1997, the day the District
was to convene its District convention. This brief time did not af-
ford the commission sufficient time to make a detailed study of the
“Policies and Guidelines Kansas District Commission on Lay Min-
istry.” With that limitation, the commission submits the following:

Similar programs as the credentialed lay ministry/deacon pro-
gram proposed for the District have existed in other Districts, e.g.,
the Michigan District, which for a number of years had a Michi-
gan Lay Ministry Institute (MLMI).

Res. 3-05B of the 1989 convention of the Synod provides for
the kind of lay worker service proposed in the overture to be pre-
sented to the 1997 convention of the District. In fact, it appears that
much of the direction is derived from that resolution. Res. 3-07A of
the 1995 convention of the Synod provides for requirements of
those who serve as deacons, that is, those who are involved on on-
going Word and Sacrament ministry if this is to continue for an ex-
tended period of time. It provides for a period of 24 months in
which men involved in such ministry must apply for admission to a
seminary for enrollment in a special program designed by the sem-
inaries. Based on this, it is assumed that credentialed lay minis-
ters/deacons prepared in the program would be expected to meet
this requirement.

However, the commission would note that the third resolve of
Res. 3-07A allows the District President to extend this grace pe-
riod. But, this is to be done only in extreme and unusual circum-
stances with the approval of the Council of Presidents.

The commission further notes that the provisions added to
Bylaw 2.09 as a result of 1995 Res. 3-07A refer only to “candi-
dates who have satisfactorily completed an approved synodical ed-
ucational program ...” [emphasis added].

In view of those factors noted above, the commission concludes
that the proposed credentialed lay ministry/deacon program, while
it may be questioned on other grounds, is not contrary to the Con-
stitution and Bylaws or resolutions of the Synod.

Adopted April 3, 1997

Conflict of Interest

A request had been received from a pastor, stating that he was
on restricted status and that his ministry and that of the congrega-
tion was under investigation. He noted that he had been threatened
with suspension and possible expulsion from the clergy roster
should the District President find against him or his congregation.
He stated that it was his conviction that the District President was a
party to the matter in dispute and that he was making an appeal to
the Praesidium of the Synod on this issue. His questions were the
following:

According to Bylaw 2.27, paragraph 1, in the event of a challenge,
the Praesidium shall determine whether the District President has a con-
flict of interest or is a party to the matter in dispute. What does the word
“shall” mean in this case?

In Bylaw 8.03 we are given a definition in regard to dispute resolu-
tion. In that section we read, “shall——as used in this chapter the word

shall is a word of command that must always be given an imperative
or compulsory meaning.” If the word “shall” in 2.27, paragraph 1, car-
ries the same meaning as it does 8.03, does the District President have
the authority to oversee and rule on an investigation when his involve-
ment in that investigation is being challenged?

If the District President has the authority to proceed with an inves-
tigation and rule on the matter prior to the ruling of the Praesidium, is
his ruling and any subsequent discipline automatically overturned
should the Praesidium rule that the District President is a party to the
matter in dispute and/or has a conflict of interest?

In responding to these questions, the Commission decided to
reply as follows:

Your letter of March 31, 1997, requesting an opinion of the Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters with respect to a number of questions
came before the commission during its telephone conference on April
17, 1997. Before responding to the questions, the commission wishes
to make it clear that expulsion from the clergy roster does not automat-
ically occur “should the President find against me and my congrega-
tion.” Should the President decide to undertake an action to expel you or
your congregation from the Synod, he is required to follow the proce-
dure outlined in Bylaw 2.27 and bring the matter before a Dispute Res-
olution Panel which would hear the matter. Expulsion would only re-
sult if the panel should find against you. This is the procedure of the
Synod for providing for due process.

The commission, upon consideration of your questions, concludes
that your appeal to the Praesidium obligates them to consider and rule
on it, It must (“shall”) make a determination.

The fact that an appeal is being made by you to the Praesidium
means that further action by the District President is to be held in
abeyance until a ruling has been made on the appeal. Should the Prae-
sidium conclude that there is a conflict of interest, the matter must be
tured over to “the First Vice-President or the next qualified officer” to
function in the place of the District President (Bylaw 2.27 1).

Adopted April 17, 1997

Unionism—Bringing Charges

In its previous meeting the commission had considered a re-
quest for an opinion received from a pastor who had included 10
questions in his request. In that meeting the commission had con-
cluded that it could only respond to questions 8, 9, and 10 since the
remaining questions were outside of its purview and should be re-
ferred to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations. A
response was prepared which included constitutional and Bylaw
references. The response which the commission agreed to provide
is as follows:

After reviewing the questions contained in your letter, the commis-
sion has concluded that all except 8, 9, and 10 are within the province of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and are outside the
purview of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Questions 1-7
should be forwarded to the Commission on Theology and Church Re-
lations for response.

In question 8, you have asked, “Should a District President be
‘charged’ with public sin and violation of Art. VI, would he be charged
in his own District as a District official, or would charges be sent to
Synod since he serves as a synodical official?”

In response, the commission states that Art. X1 B indicates that the
President has the supervision regarding the doctrine and administration
of “All District Presidents.” A charge against a District President may
therefore be made to the President of the Synod whose authority is,
however, limited by the provisions of Art. XI B 2 and 3 to advising, ad-
monishing, reproving, and if admonition is not heeded, reporting to the
Synod.

A charge under Art. VI may also be made within the District under
the provisions of Bylaw 2.27, “Commencing an Action to Terminate
Congregational or Individual Membership.” In this case, a charge
against a District President would be investigated by the First Vice-
President of the District or the next qualified District officer (Bylaw
2.27 a 1). As stated in Bylaw 2.27 b, if the District President (in this
case the First Vice-President or next qualified District officer) declines
to suspend the member, a written complaint can be made to the Prae-
sidium, which will act as indicated, either proceed with suspension or
decline to do so, depending on the outcome of its investigation.