# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S337
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 337

The CCM interprets “fails to act” to mean that a District President
lakes no action within 90 days of receiving a complaint. Such inaction
would mean no measures were initiated with the 90-day period to as-
certain the truth or falsity of the complaint allegations. ... A complaint
which is ignored by a District President for 90 days triggers the “fails to
act” language. In that siluation, an appeal to the Praesidium is the proper
procedure anticipated in the Bylaw.

When, however, a District President receives a complaint, he may
take a number of actions which toll the “fails to act” language of the
Bylaw. ... Such efforts may extend beyond 90 days until a decision con-
cerning suspension is reached. At that time a complainant may appeal if
the District President declines to suspend. ...

The Bylaws are silent regarding the length of time a District Presi-
dent has to conclude an action on a complaint. The clear intent of the
Bylaw requires expeditious action by a District President when dealing
with such a complaint. A District President may not frustrate the pur-
pose of the Bylaw by undertaking some action within 90 days and sub-
sequently refusing to act. The actions of a District President upon re-
ceiving a complaint must ultimately lead to a decision to suspend or not
to suspend. When a District President begins to act within 90 days and
subsequently fails to act, a complainant may properly appeal to the Prae-
sidium. The Praesidium shall determine on a factual basis whether the
District President commenced and continued to act.

In this case also, the Commission recommends that an appro-
priate Bylaw change be proposed to a national convention of the
Synod to provide wording that will address the stated concern.

Adopted June 15, 2000

Approval of Changes to Bylaws
of the English District (00-2202)

The Commission concurred with the Secretary’s approval to the
proposed change to the Bylaws of the English District removing
term limits for the President of the District. The Commission, how-
ever, offers the following response to the use of the term “Bishop”
in the overture to be submitted to the District convention:

Opinion: The Commission notes that Ov. 3-42 to the 198] syn-
odical convention asked for permission to use the title “Bishop.” It
resolved “that the Synod in convention assembled permissively
grant as an alternate title the scriptural term bishop to the President
of the Synod and the District Presidents and the Vice-Presidents of
both the Synod and the Districts, but for legal purposes the desig-
nation President/Vice-President be retained in the Constitution.”

In response, Res. 3-19, “To Retain the Terminology of ‘Presi-
dent’ and ‘Vice-President,’” respectfully declined Ov. 3-42. The
Commission notes, therefore, that while a resolution to remove
term limits for the President of the English District is acceptable,
the use of the term “Bishop” in the overture and any ensuing con-
vention action advocating the removal of term limits is out of order.

Adopted June 15, 2000

Questions re Conflict of Interest, District-Initiated
Programs, Agreements with Heterodox
Entities (99-2173A)

A member of the Synod, upon request of the Commission, re-
worded his questions originally submitted to the Commission in his
December 1999 letter. The Commission responded as follows:

Question 1: Do the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod address whether employees or ministers of the Synod and
its Districts, while in the formal, full-time employment of Synod,
may draw a regular stipend or receive frequent honoraria from or-
ganizations or enterprises and/or use synodical resources to pro-
mote such organizations or enterprises for which they have devel-
oped, sponsored, served, or promoted programs or consulting
services designed with the intent of selling those programs or ser-
vices to the Synod or its member congregations and institutions?
Could not such efforts, if permitted, fall into a conflict of interest
wherein employees are using synodical time and resources to ser-
vice an agency (be it an RSO or some other organization) outside
of the Synod and potentially at odds with the Synod?

Opinion: Synodical Bylaw 3.71 deals with the question of con-
flict of interest. It requires each governing board of a synodical en-

tity to institute a conflict of interest policy. Interpretation of such
individual policies ts beyond the scope of this Commission’s du-
ties under Bylaw 3.905 d. The question posed actually contains
multiple questions that are very general. Specific cases should be
measured against the provisions of Bylaw 3.71 and the conflict of
interest policy of the appropriate board. The final question of this
paragraph seems to be a rhetorical question of policy rather than a
request for an interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws and is
thus beyond the duties of this Commission.

Question 2: Would it be a violation of synodical Bylaw 3.409 or
any other synodical Bylaw if (a) individual, rostered church work-
ers, (b) member congregations of the Synod, or (c) synodical Dis-
tricts, of their own initiative (i.e., without any specific directive
from Synod), were to establish and promote Synodwide programs
for educating pastors, other commissioned ministers, or laypeople?
(And if rostered church workers, member congregations, or synod-
ical Districts are permitted to establish and promote such programs
on a Synodwide basis, what entity bears the responsibility for su-
pervision of these programs with regard to the Synod’s Constitu-
tion, Bylaws, doctrine, and practice, and what entity would address
concerns raised by members of the Synod?)

Opinion: To answer this question requires that a distinction be
made between (1) undergraduate and seminary education, which
falls under the responsibilities of the Board for Higher Education
pursuant to Bylaw 3.409, and (2) continuing education enrichment,
which does not fall under that Bylaw. Article III of the Synod’s
Constitution provides that

The Synod, under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, shall—

3. Recruit and train pastors, teachers, and other professional church
workers and provide opportunity for their continuing growth.

Bylaw 3.409 gives the Board for Higher Education “overall re-
sponsibility to provide for the education of ordained and commis-
sioned ministers and other professional church workers for the
Synod by supervising and coordinating the activities of the Synod’s
colleges, universities, and seminaries as a unified synodical system
through their respective boards of regents.” While these institutions
may well provide post-degree continuing education programs, the
obvious intent of the Bylaw, and the primary mission of the Con-
cordia University System and our seminaries, is to provide educa-
tion that leads to a degree. Nothing about the Bylaw suggests that
these institutions are to be the exclusive source for post-degree con-
tinuing education, nor that the Board for Higher Education should
have responsibility for supervising all sources of post-degree con-
tinuing education. Indeed, it is apparently a reasonably common
practice for continuing education for professional church workers
to be obtained from other sources than these. There is no prohibi-
tion against rostered church workers, congregations, or Districts es-
tablishing or promoting continuing education programs and offer-
ing them to anyone within the Synod. Such programs would be
subject to inquiry by the person with ecclesiastical supervision over
the person or entity which offers the program.

Question 3: If a District, seminary, or official board of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod were to enter into an agreement
with a heterodox church body or a heterodox organization or en-
terprise to train pastoral candidates, ordained ministers, or com-
missioned ministers, would that stand in violation of any of the
Synod’s Bylaws, such as Bylaw 4.07 e or 3.409? (And if it is pos-
sible for a District, seminary, or official board of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod to be in violation of such a Bylaw, then
which entity is responsible for determining whether the agreement
stands contrary to the expressed Constitution, Bylaws, and confes-
sion of doctrine and practice of the Synod, and what entity would
address concerns raised by members of the Synod?)

Opinion: If this question refers to undergraduate or seminary
training of church workers, such an arrangement would be imper-
missible under Bylaw 3.409 as explained above. With respect to
post-graduate continuing education, the Commission observes that
Art. VI of the Synod’s Constitution requires that members of the
Synod renounce “unionism and syncretism of every description.”
The examples given in that article, especially “participating in het-
erodox tract and missionary activities” would also forbid joining
with a heterodox church body for the purpose of training church

2001 Convention Workbook