# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S320 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 320 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS cies regarding personnel selection and grant prior approval for ini- tial appointments of theological faculty” (paragraph h). The BHE is therefore authorized to provide such guidelines as on academic freedom “in keeping with the objectives and the Constitution, By- laws, and resolutions of the Synod.” The question notes that two types of persons may be contracted: (1) laypersons who are members ot LCMS congregations and (2) rostered members of the Synod. Of the two, Bylaw 6.23 ¢ states that rostered candidates are to be preferred when faculty positions are filled: “Ordinartly candidates for full-time teaching positions shall be rostered members of the Synod.” Bylaw 6.23 ¢ also stipu- lates that should laypersons be contracted. the same allegiance to the teachings and practice of the Synod is required as of rostered members of the Synod: “When laypersons are employed in full- time teaching positions, they shall pledge to perform their duties in harmony with the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, the Lutheran Confessions, the Synod’s doctrinal statements, and the polictes of the Synod.” In the case of both categories of persons, doctrinal resolutions and statements “are to be honored and upheld until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them” (Bylaw 1.09 b). If there is disagreement, “Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements shall be governed by Bylaw 2.39 c” (Bylaw 1.09 d). In the meanwhile, dissenters are to “continue to honor and uphold publicly ... the position of the Synod. notwithstanding further study and action by the Synod” (Bylaw 1.09 ¢ 10) or face removal from office (Bylaw 6.43 ¢ 6). If, therefore, a rostered member of the Synod or a layperson who “is known to publicly hold a teaching that is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod” is considered for a faculty teaching position, it will be necessary to learn if and to what ex- tent this is true. [f it is found to be true and full compliance with the stated positions of the Synod is not possible, such a person cannot be offered a teaching position in a synodical school. If a person is hired after pledging full compliance with the stated positions of the Synod and fails to honor that commitment, onc of the causes for which members of a faculty may be removed from office is “ad- vocacy of false doctrine (Constitution, Art. 11) or failure to honor and uphold the doctrinal position of the Synod as defined further in Bylaw 1.09” (Bylaw 6.43 c 6). Bylaw 6.23 d also allows that “the Board of Regents may decline to renew the appointment of a fac- ulty member without tenure at its discretion and without formal statement of cause.” Adopted May 5, 1999 Amendments to LCEF Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (99-2143) At its 1998 convention, The Lutheran Chureh—Missouri Synod adopted a resolution amending Bylaw 3.503 (formerly Bylaw 3.493) and Bylaw 3.197 of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (the “Synod”) to change the scope of the objectives of the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod (“LCEF’”). At its mect- ing in November 1998, LCEF’s membcrs adopted amendments to Articles Fourth and Ninth of its Articles of Incorporation to reflect the changes to Synod Bylaws 3.503 and 3.197. Also, at its 1998 convention, the Synod adopted a resolution amending Bylaw 3.161 and Bylaw 3.501 (formerly Bylaw 3.490) of the Synod. At its meeting in November 1998, the members of the LCEF adopted amendments to Art. II, Sections |, 2, 3, and 6, and Art. VI of its Bylaws to reflect the changes to Synod Bylaws 3.161 and 3.501. Synod Bylaw 3.197 requires that the Board of Directors of the Synod and the Commission on Constitutional Matters review any amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Syn- odwide corporate entities for conformity to the Synod’s Bylaws. The amendments adopted by LCEF’s members were approved by the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod at its meeting on February 25, 1999. They now have been presented to the Commission for its review and approval. After a review of the amendments made, the Commission adopted the following resolution: 2001 Convention Werkbook Resolved, That the amendments to Articles Fourth and Ninth of the Articles of Incorporation of The Lutheran Church Extension Fund— Missouri Synod, adopted at the mecting of the members of that corpo- ration held in November 1998, reflecting the changes to Synod Bylaws 3.503 and 3.197 adopted by the Synod at its 1998 convention, having been reviewed by the Commission on Constitutional Matters, are in conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and are hereby approved; and be it further Resolved, That the Amendments to Art. II, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6, and Art. VI of the Bylaws of LCEF, adopted at the meeting of the mem- bers of that corporation held in November 1998, reflecting the changcs to Synod Bylaws 3.161 and 3.501 adopted by the Synod at its 1998 con- vention, having been reviewed by the Commission on Constitutional Matters, are in conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and are approved. The Commission notes, however, that the last two sentences of Section 3 of Art. I] of the Bylaws of LCEF state as follows: Elected directors may be removed by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Board of Directors of the LCEF at any time, with cause. A vacancy on the Board of Directors shall be filled by election by the members of the LCEF at any regular or special meeting. The Commission rules that those directors elected by a conven- tion of the Synod cannot be removed with or without cause by ac- tion of the Board of Directors of LCEF. Should a vacancy occur among those members of the Board of Directors elected by a con- vention of the Synod, the provisions of synodical Bylaw 3.63 must apply. Accordingly, the above quoted sentences of Section 3 of Art. {1 must therefore be amended when the members of LCEF next have opportunity tn the manner set forth in the governing instru- ments of LCEF. Adopted May 5, 1999 Questions regarding the Dispute Resolution Process (99-2144) A pastor and congregation involved in a dispute resolution case have raised a series of questions pertaining to the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process. The Commission responds as follows: 1. Can District/synodical officials intervene, followed by the syn- odical Reconciliation/ Dispute Resolution Process, cutting short or interrupting a congregation’s own biblically, confessionally, and synodically approved constitutional reconciliation proce- dures? Bylaw 8.05 requires that, prior to the formal reconciliation process of the Synod, the parties must make a good-faith attempt at settling the dispute themselves. Bylaw 8.07 c furthermore requires that the ap- pointed reconciler, as a first order of business, determine whether such informal reconciliation efforts have been adequate. It is therefore the responsibility of the reconciler to determine whether informal, or as in this case, congregational efforts have been adequate. 2. Can a Dispute Resolution Panel exclude a party's evidence from a hearing on its own without listening to formal arguments to re- tain such evidence from either party whose evidence is being ex- cluded? Should the DRP provide for other avenues of due process relative to evidence? It is not the responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Mat- ters to determine whether the Dispute Resolution Process should pro- vide for other avenues of due process relative to evidence. Bylaw 3.905 stipulates that it is the business of the Commission only to interpret the existing Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. Bylaw 8.21 g gives responsibility to a panel for determining the number of witnesses necessary for a full and complete understanding of the facts involved in the dispute. Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure of the Dispute Resolution Process allows that “the parties may offer any evidence that they consider to be fair, relevant, and pertinent to the dis- pute.” The same rule, however, also provides final decision-making au- thority to the panel, stipulating that “the reconcilers and panels shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered, and conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.” 3. Can a called worker who resigns from his position have further recourse against a congregation with regard to his worker/em- ployment status when he knowingly agrees to a congregation's constitution and bylaw procedures that resignation is the end of the matter?