# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S309
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
responsibilities. He may certainly, in the exercise of his ecclesiastical
supervision, request the opportunity to speak at such a meeting and
give input, advice, encouragement, and if necessary, admonition, as
he deems appropriate. Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of
the voters’ assembly itself to make decisions regarding the conduct
of that congregation.
[NOTE: Questions not discussed in this Opinion: The letter submitting Question 1 then continues with sub-questions A through W. Most of
these address details which a district president may include in communication regarding the scheduling of a voters’ assembly meeting, or topics
which may be properly identified by him for discussion or action. As
discussed above, a district president cannot on his own convene a voters’ assembly or determine its agenda. Only at the request and concurrence of the proper, recognized leaders of a congregation as authorized
under its own governing documents may a district president facilitate
the calling of such a meeting, including the announcement of the scheduled time and the identification of the business to be considered, including consideration of any official visit or investigation.
Some of the additional questions address interpretation of a congregation’s internal documents. Even if such governing documents were
submitted to the commission, which they were not, the commission’s
role is to interpret the Synod’s own documents and not those of an individual congregation. The additional sub-questions which the commission can address are discussed below.]

Question 2: Is it ever permissible for a district president to withhold
district aid, help, and support, or to in any way pressure
a congregation either to close or cede control of its property/assets to the district? If it is, is a district president’s
opinion that a particular congregation is “unhealthy”
and/or unviable an adequate reason to withhold said
aid, help, and support from a congregation?
Opinion: A district president is charged with providing ecclesiastical supervision and support for each member congregation of
his district. Such supervision is not always welcome, particularly
where dissension and factions exist in a congregation, where admonition is involved, where long-time members of a congregation face
changes in membership and economics which raise the prospect of
disbanding, or where the congregation is otherwise “unhealthy.” As
the circumstances of a congregation change, some congregations
will ultimately become non-viable. Under such circumstances, a
district president may be required to exercise his responsibility by
providing counsel, encouragement, and advice which urges a congregation to merge, to become part of a multi-congregation parish,
or even to disband and close. Such efforts may be considered “pressure” on a congregation, but “pressure” by definition may very well
result from any good counsel, encouragement, advice, or admonition.
Should a congregation consider disbanding and closing, the district president may well be called upon to advise and encourage the
congregation with respect to the disposition of its assets and property.
The question submitted is unclear as to what kind of “aid, help, and
support” is being referenced. If the aid, help, and support referenced
are to the conversation, relationship, encouragement, admonition, or
other aspects of ecclesiastical supervision, such aid, help, and support
are to be provided by a district president until and unless the congregation disbands. If reference is being made to financial subsidy or
support, it is the responsibility of not only the district president, but
also the district board of directors or those otherwise charged with
the stewardship of the district’s resources, to determine whether or
not a congregation is healthy or viable enough to justify the use of
the district’s resources for such support.
Question 3: If a congregation’s leaders become frustrated with a district president, feeling as though he has been neglectful

309

in helping them to provide adequate LCMS pastoral
ministry to the congregation, are frustrated by what they
view to be excessive district interference in the day-today operation of the congregation, and feel increasingly
under pressure by the district to close the congregation
and/or give control of the congregation’s assets and
property to the district, the frustration building to the
point that one or more congregational leaders tell the
district president that they may need to disassociate from
the LCMS—is it ever appropriate for the district president to respond to these complaints by stating something
like, “People can vote to leave the Synod. But the congregation (its property and assets) remain with the one
or more persons who vote to remain in the Synod”?
Opinion: While the question is somewhat argumentative, more
importantly, it goes beyond the scope of the commission’s authority and responsibility. Determination of whether a congregation’s
property and assets would remain with the one or more persons
who vote to remain with the Synod is a question of the congregation’s governing documents, not the Synod. Since a congregation’s
governing documents are filed with the district, a district president
would be aware of such provisions and, if the issue of disassociation were to arise in discussion with members of the congregation,
he ought to be prepared to candidly discuss the results and consequences of such action. In the event of disagreement within a
congregation, if the language of the congregation’s own governing
documents has delegated to the Synod, and ultimately to the district
president, responsibility for determining which persons or faction
within a congregation have remained true to the confessions of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, such governing documents
may well dictate the result suggested by the question.
(Adopted Nov. 11–13, 2011)

Congregation Representation at Circuit Forums
(11-2617)
In an emailed letter dated October 4, 2011, a circuit counselor
requested an opinion regarding the interpretation of Bylaws 5.2.2 (c),
5.3.2, and 3.1.2.1 (c) pertaining to representation at circuit forums
from a dual parish that has two called pastors. He asked two questions:
1.	In the case of a dual parish with two called pastors, may both
pastors of this dual parish vote at the circuit forum to elect delegates to a convention of the national Synod, each pastor representing a different congregation (governed by Bylaw 3.1.2.1
[c])?
2.	In the case of a dual parish with two called pastors, may both
pastors of this dual parish vote at the circuit forum to select a
circuit counselor, each pastor representing a different congregation (governed by Bylaws 5.2.2 [c] and 5.3.2)?

The bylaws pertinent to these questions are, as mentioned, the
following:
3.1.2.1 (c) The privilege of voting shall be exercised by one pastor
and one layperson from each member congregation of the circuit, both of whom shall have been selected in the manner prescribed by the congregation. Multiple parishes shall be entitled
to a lay vote from each member congregation.
5.2.2 (c) Selection of the circuit counselor shall be by election by
written ballot. The privilege of voting shall be exercised by the
representatives from each member congregation of the circuit,
who shall have been selected in the manner prescribed by the
congregation (Bylaw 5.3.2).
5.3.2 The circuit forum consists of a pastor of each congregation and
one member of each congregation designated by the congregation.

2013 Convention Workbook