# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S285 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION 285 WHEREAS, Pastors should neither function as CEOs nor is their ordination a sacrament to their congregations; and WHEREAS, The teaching of C. F. W. Walther’s “Church and Ministry” and “The Right Form of an Evangelical Lutheran Local Congregation Independent of the State” is the polity most harmo- nious with the Bible and favorable to the clear preaching and teach- ing of the Gospel, evangelism, and the preservation of the Office of the Keys God has given to every Christian under the Gospel; there- fore be it Resolved, That the 2001 convention of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod reaffirm that all LCMS congregations only be gov- emed by supreme voters assemblies; and be it further Resolved, That a clear statement of governance by supreme vot- ers assemblies be published in all LCMS congregational constitu- tions as a condition of membership in the LCMS; and be it further Resolved, That all pastors, Circuit Counselors, District Presi- dents, and synodical officials publicly teach and support the im- portance of supreme voters assemblies as the official congrega- tional polity of the LCMS; and be it further Resolved, That all synodical boards of regents, presidents, and faculties only endorse, promote, and teach their students to prac- tice congregational governance by supreme voters assemblies; and be it further Resolved, That such action will help preserve unity, harmony, and the proper administration of the Office of the Keys in au- tonomous LCMS congregations; and be it finally Resolved, That the LCMS publish and promote Walther’s teach- ing and practice on the doctrine of church and ministry as the most excellent scriptural teaching that maintains God’s order and peace in congregations, affirms the priesthood of all believers, promotes the full exercise of the Office of the Keys, maintains the Synod as an advisory body to the congregations, and best facilitates the work of the Great Commission. Redeemer, St. Clair Shores, MI; Immanuel, San Antonio, TX; Faith, Corning, NY 7-136 To Advocate Wider Geographical Representation on Boards, Commissions, and Committees WHEREAS, There has been a tendency to appoint members to boards, commissions, and committees of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, such as the Church Growth Study Committee, whose members, with one exception, are all from the midwestern United States (lowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, and Wisconsin); and WHEREAS, This practice tends to create a sense of isolation from the rest of the Synod, especially in those Districts that are outside the midwestem United States; therefore be it Resolved, That in the future, Synodwide geographical represen- tation be a determining factor in the selection and placement of members of synodical boards, commissions, and committees. St. James Myrtle Point, OR 7-137 To Assure Qualifications of Board Members Rationale The effectiveness of boards is directly related to the qualifica- tions of the members elected or appointed to serve on a board. Qualifications should reflect a background that allows the member to contribute to the decision-making responsibilities and the related activities of a board. Presently, the synodical Handbook identifies such qualifications for the Board for Higher Education (Bylaw 3.407 a: “who have financial or administrative or education expe- rience”). The Synod’s Committee for Convention Nominations is charged with the responsibility to match the background qualifica- tions of individuals nominated for a designated board. It is recog- nized that this responsibility is not an easy task. However, if a process were in place to better match qualifications and committee responsibilities, our Synod’s stewardship in utilizing its volunteers in service to the Synod could be improved. In order to help the nominations committee with its task, it would be useful for the nominations committee to have the boards themselves review the qualifications of all who have been nominated to serve on their board. They could then share their observations about the qualifi- cations of each candidate with the nominations committee. Al- though there might be differences of opinion, the nominations com- mittee would make the final decision. Resolved, Each board in service to the Synod should develop a list of qualifications for effective service corresponding to the de- cision-making responsibilities related to the activities of that board; and be it further Resolved, That the synodical nominations committee should match the background of nominees to the list of qualifications pro- vided each board in service to the Synod; and be it finally Resolved, That the synodical nominations committee shall sub- mit the list of potential nominees to the current board in November prior to the synodical convention for review against the stated qual- ifications, and the board shall return its comments to the nomina- tions committee before the committee prepares a final list of nom- inees for the synodical convention. Board for Higher Education Concordia University System 7-138 To Restore Jungkuntz’s CRM Status Background Information (Ex post facto) On Sept. 12, 1985, Dr. Ted Jungkuntz was granted CRM sta- tus. When this occurred, the Synod’s own rule said that such status was good for three years. That meant that Dr. Jungkuntz could re- main on CRM status until Sept. 12, 1988. However, in 1986 the Synod altered the term of initial CRM status to two years, and it was under this new rule (which should not apply to Dr. Jungkuntz’s case) that he was removed from the synodical clergy roster after only two years of his three-year CRM status. This removal was il- legal, for Dr. Jungkuntz should have been dealt with under the rule that was in effect for him. Another sad fact in this matter is that when he was removed from the clergy roster by the Council of Presidents (COP) on Nov. 17, 1987, he was never officially in- formed of this action (a breach of pastoral ethics). In simple lan- guage, he was deprived of approximately one year of CRM status and was removed from the roster without notification or warming before his original three-year “time of grace” had elapsed. While it is certainly possible that the COP was ignorant of this legal error at the time they took the above action, nevertheless an error was made, In 1992 the Committee on Constitutional Matters (CCM) was asked to rule on this procedure. The CCM’s reply was: “As to the matter of a person who was granted candidate status under the three year rule, the Commission concludes that he cannot be required to meet a two year rule for initial candidate status which was subsequently passed. The Bylaw may not be applied (our emphasis) ex post facto.” While no names are mentioned, this ruling certainly would apply to Dr. Junkuntz’s request for CRM re- newal. The COP was informed by the Secretary of the Synod of the CCM’s decision at least two times. Page 68 of the 1995 Hand- book gives information as to the membership and functions of the CCM. Bylaw 3.905 d states “An opinion rendered by the commis- sion shall be binding (our emphasis) on the question decided un- less and until it is overruled by a synodical convention.” Perhaps the COP was unaware of its ignoring of 3.905 d. At any rate, the CCM’s ruling should negate the COP’s action that removed Dr. Jungkuntz from the clergy roster. We have addressed these matters (especially the ex post facto issue) to the COP a number of times and this matter has not been corrected. Therefore we submit the 2001 Convention Workbook