# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S319
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 319

Question: Were the regents elected at the 1998 convention
elected to three-year or six-year terms?:

Opinion: The Commission makes the following observations:

(1) The election in question was reported in session 9, July 16,
1998, of the convention (see page 35 of the 1998 convention
Proceedings).

(2) Resolution 5-06, which amended Bylaw 6.01 by chang-
ing the term of office of elected regents from three years
to six years, was adopted in session 10, July 16, 1998, of
the convention. This resolution was.therefore adopted
after the election in question was finalized.

(3) The convention’s parliamentarian has ruled that bylaw
changes take effect immediately upon passage.

(4) Therefore the change in term of office of regents from
three years to six years did not occur until after the Con-
cordia, Selma board election was finalized.

Based upon this information, the regent who presented the ques-
tion was elected to a three-year term of office. The Commission
notes that a footnote on page 43 of the Synod’s 1998 Handbook,
commenting upon Bylaw 3.59, indicates that “Six-year terms for
elected Board of Regents members for colleges and universities
will take effect at the next elections” [i.e., at the 2001 synodical
convention]. Based upon the chronology set forth above, this foot-
note is correct.

Adopted July, 2001

Question re Disciplinary Process
of a Non-Member Faculty Member (01-2233)

In a September 28 letter the President of a university of the
Synod, in preparation for his role as facilitator of the actions de-
scribed by Bylaw 6.47 a, asked the following questions regarding
the final outcome of the process described by Bylaw 6.47:

Question: What if the complaint is brought under Bylaw 6.43 c
5 or 6, but the respondent (i.e., the accused faculty member) is not
a member of the Synod (i-e., a rostered ordained or commissioned
minister of religion)? Does the matter end with the decision of the
Board of Regents? Or does the ecclesiastical disciplinary process of
Bylaw 2.27 have some role to play (and, if so, what is it, given that
membership in the Synod is not at issue)?

Response: Bylaw 6.23 c requires that, as with rostered mem-
bers of the Synod, when laypersons are employed in full-time
teaching positions, “they shall pledge to perform their duties in har-
mony with the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, the
Lutheran Confessions, the Synod’s doctrinal statements, and the
policies of the Synod.” Accordingly, in a previous opinion (99-
2142) the Commission ruled:

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, “dis-
sent from doctrinal resolutions and statements shall be governed by
Bylaw 2.39 c.”

In the same prior ruling the Commission also ruled:

If a person is hired after pledging full compliance with the
stated positions of the Synod and fails to honor that commitment,
one of the causes for which members of a faculty may be removed
from office is ‘advocacy of false doctrine (Constitution, Art. II) or
failure to honor and uphold the doctrinal position of the Synod as
defined further in Bylaw 1.09” (Bylaw 6.43 c 6).

In other words, the Bylaws of the Synod and prior rulings of the
Commission establish that rostered and lay members of faculties
are held to the same standard of conduct. Accordingly, Bylaw 6.47,
as it describes the process to be followed when a board of regents
receives a complaint against a member of a school faculty or ad-
ministration, does not distinguish between rostered and lay faculty
members: “If the Board of Regents receives a complaint against
that institution’s faculty or administration concerning any mat-
ter...,” a commonality that continues throughout the process until
the Review Committee issues its decision and the Board of Regents
takes appropriate action.

The action of the board is final in most cases. However, Bylaw
6.47 g provides that when the complaint involves “5. Conduct un-
becoming a Christian; 6. Advocacy of false doctrine (Constitution,
Art. II) or failure to honor and uphold the doctrinal position of the
Synod as defined further in Bylaw 1.09” (Bylaw 6.43 c), the com-
plainant “may take the complaint to the District President.” [f the
Review Committee finds grounds to establish a violation of Bylaw
6.43 c 5-6, Bylaw 6.47 h requires that it “must refer the complaint
to the District President” in order that “the procedure set forth in
Bylaw 2.27” may be followed prior to final action by the Board of
Regents. Bylaw 2.27 deals with action to terminate an individual’s
membership in the Synod. If the person in question is not a member
of the Synod, that bylaw is inapplicable. It is not possible to termi-
nate a membership that does not exist in the first instance.

The Commission rules, therefore, that complaints against lay
members of a faculty are to be handled in the same manner as com-
plaints against rostered workers, except that the process ends with
action by the Board of Regents, since it is not possible to apply
Bylaw 2.27 to one who is not a member of Synod. The action of the
Board of Regents will be final as to one who is not a member of
Synod. However, that action is subject to review by the Synod’s
President under Bylaw 3.101, subsections 2 and 5, which, allow the
President to visit the Synod’s educational institutions, call up for
review any action that may violate the Constitution, Bylaws or res-
olutions of the Synod and request that it be reversed. The President
is to report an unsatisfactory response to the Board of Directors,
this Commission, or the Synod in convention, as appropriate, for
further action.

Adopted Nov. 1, 2001

Question re District Membership and Ecclesiastical
Supervision of Rostered Workers Called or Appointed
by Recognized Service Organizations (01-2234)

An executive director of a program board of the Synod, in a let-
ter dated October 17, 2001, brought forward a question that arose in
his conversations with a District President regarding District mem-
bership and ecclesiastical supervision of two pastors called by a
Recognized Service Organization.

Question: When a pastor accepts a call from a Recognized Ser-
vice Organization, to which District will he belong and from which
District President will he receive his ecclesiastical supervision?

Response: A church worker who is called by a Recognized Ser-
vice Organization (RSO) remains an active member of the Synod
(Bylaw 2.15 j) so long as the following requirements are met:

* He or she must be a communicant member of a congregation
which is a member of the Synod (Bylaw 2.15) and must be regu-
larly performing the duties of an executive or professional staff
member of the RSO (Bylaw 2.15 j).

¢ He or she remains accountable to the Synod for teaching and
practice and is to be supervised-by the appropriate District Presi-
dent according to Bylaws 2.21 ff. (CCM Ag. 2115 — August 24,
1998).

* Ecclesiastical supervision is provided by the President of the District
through which membership in the Synod is held (Bylaw 2.41 i), who
is responsible for overseeing the doctrine and life of that member
(Art. XII 7).

The Commission notes that “the District through which an in-
dividual holds membership and the District through which a mem-
ber is ecclesiastically supervised will not be determined in any case
on the basis of District membership of the congregation to which
the individual belongs” (Bylaw 2.41 j). Church workers called or
appointed by recognized service organizations may therefore hold
membership in any LCMS congregation, since such membership
does not affect District membership or ecclesiastical supervision.

Regarding the specific question posed to the Commission, it
rules that District membership and ecclesiastical supervision are to
be determined by the geographic location of the RSO. The geo-
graphic District in which an RSO is physically located will be the
District through which church workers who have accepted an ex-
ecutive or staff position will hold synodical membership and from

2004 Convention Workbook