# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S331
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 331

tion of the matter by a hearing if necessary. It provides for a Re-
view Committee to decide the issue, which decision shall be final
except in cases where the complaint involves conduct under Bylaw
6.43 c 5 (conduct unbecoming a Christian) or 6.43 c 6 (false doc-
trine). In those cases the complainant may, after the Review Com-
mittee renders its decision, “take the complaint to the District Pres-
ident, who shall follow the procedure set forth in Bylaw 2.27”
(Bylaw 6.47 g).

Although Bylaw 2.27 might also be read to apply in the case of
a university faculty member separately and as an alternative to
Bylaw 6.47, the Commission believes that this was not intended to
be the case. Bylaw 6.47 is specific to the situation of a university
faculty member, whereas Bylaw 2.27 is general and applies to any
member of the Synod. A common maxim of interpretation of doc-
uments such as statutes and bylaws holds that if two provisions dis-
agree, the more specific controls over the more general one. Thus
Bylaw 6.47, being more specific, would apply rather than Bylaw
2.27. Additional support for this conclusion is found in Bylaw 6.45
b, which accords finality to the decision under Bylaw 6.47 with no
right of appeal except as provided in Bylaw 6.47 b (relating to
charges of conduct unbecoming a Christian and advocacy of false
doctrine). It is apparent from this section that the procedure in
Bylaw 6.47 is intended to be primary in all cases, and that in two
specified cases only may the procedure of Bylaw 2.27 be applied
after the provisions of Bylaw 6.47 have been followed.
Adopted Dec. 16. 1999

Question re District President Responsibility
for Roster Classification (99-2166)

A parish pastor in a letter dated September 23, 1999, asked the
Commission to respond to the following two questions:

Question 1: Does a District President have the constitutional
right and/or privilege to change the title and, therefore, the status of
a pastor (for example, from “pastor” to “assistant pastor” or “asso-
ciate pastor”) without consultation with the pastor and/or the con-
gregation?

Question 2: Does a District President have the constitutional
right and/or privilege to change the title and voting status of a pas-
tor in the Circuit, District, and Synod without informing the pastor
or the congregation that he has made such a change?

Opinion: The Commission observes that under Bylaw 2.45 b. a
congregation has the right to call ordained and commissioned min-
isters. The cal! document defines the position to which the minister
is called and the position’s responsibilities. which also determine
the roster classification of the Synod. A District President has no
authority to change any of the terms of a call document.

Art. V A of the Constitution of the Synod states that at meet-
ings of the District each congregation is entitled to two votes, one
by the pastor and one by the lay delegate. Furthermore, Bylaws
2.43 and 4.77 give to the District President the responsibility of
rostering pastors. Therefore, the Commission concludes that when
a congregation has two or more pastors, the congregation has the
responsibility to define their positions, to thereby indicate the clas-
sification of the pastors, and, if they are to be “associate pastors,” to
determine which of the pastors shall exercise the right of franchise.
It is the responsibility of the congregation to keep the District Pres-
ident informed as to the status of its pastors so that he can report
roster changes to the Secretary of the Synod in a timely manner.
Failure to do so forces the District President to exercise judgment
in carrying out his responsibility under Bylaw 4.77.

Adopted Dec. 16, 1999

Question re Term Limits for Circuit
Counselors (99-2167)

A District Secretary in an October 7, 1999, letter requested the
opinion of the Commission regarding the applicability of his Dis-
trict’s Bylaw regarding term limitations to Circuit Counselors. In
his letter he notes that term limitations have not been applied to
Circuit Counselors in the past, possibly due to an “understanding

that the Counselors are officers of the Synod and not officers of the
District.”

Question: Are the Circuit Counselors of a District subject to the
District’s three-term tenure Bylaw or are they outside the scope of

_that Bylaw because they are officers of the Synod and not officers

of the District?

Opinion: Art. XIE 3 ¢ and Bylaw 4.51 list Circuit Counselors as
officers of the District. While Art. XII 5 provides that the election
and time of service of District officers are to be determined by the
Bylaws of the Synod, Bylaw 4.125 b grants to Districts the right to
determine limitation of tenure.

Therefore, Circuit Counselors are not officers of the Synod but
only of a District. As District officers they are subject to all By-
laws of the Synod and the District that pertain to District officers.
However, a District may in its Bylaws place limitations on tenure
of Circuit Counselors.

Adopted Dec. 16, 1999

Questions re Congregations Following
Bylaws in Extending Calls (99-2170)

A District Board of Directors in a formal board action instructed
that the Commission be requested to make “a determination about
the validity, legality, properness, or other conclusion about the call
resulting from a congregation violating its own constitution or by-
laws.” The District President submitted the following questions:

Question /: If a congregation does not follow its constitution
and bylaws in calling a professional church worker, does that “in-
validate” the call?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.45 a requires that congregations seek the ad-
vice of the District President when calling ordained and commis-
sioned ministers, also providing in paragraph c that congregations
that persist in failing to follow that Bylaw “shall. after due admo-
nition, forfeit their membership in the Synod.” Bylaw 4.73 requires
a District President to advise congregations in the calling of pas-
tors and teachers. Art. III 9 of the Synod’s Constitution tncludes
the protection of congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church
workers in the objectives of the Synod. These provisions set forth a
clear and useful process for calling church workers that should pre-
vent or minimize irregularities in the calling process.

Nothing in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod would in-
dicate that a call would be invalidated by the failure of a congrega-
tion to follow its own constitution and bylaws in the calling
process. The Commission further observes, however, that questions
regarding the call involve matters of theology that are beyond the
scope of this Commission’s responsibilities. Further, failure to fol-
low the proper procedures may have legal ramifications which are
also beyond the scope of this Commission’s responsibilities.

Question 2: If the call is considered “invalid.” what does that
mean for the congregation and the worker?

Opinion: In conformity with the prior answer, the Commission
observes that nothing in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod
answers this question.

Question 3: What action may the District or the Synod take in
the matter?

Opinion: The role of the District and therefore of the Synod is
set forth in the clear and useful process for calling church workers
provided by Bylaws 2.45 a and 4.73. It is the responsibility of Dis-
trict Presidents to advise congregations in the calling of ordained
and commissioned ministers. This rightly will include attention to
the process for calling church workers contained in the congrega-
tion’s Constitution and Bylaws.

Adopted Dec. 16, 1999

Question re Restrictions on Membership
on Board for Higher Education (99-2172)

The Executive Director of the Board for Higher Education, in a
letter to the Secretary dated November 8, 1999, raised a question
regarding the District membership restriction placed upon elections

2001 Convention Workbook