# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 29 2003_S18
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

viability and appropriateness of the deaconess program at Concordia University, River Forest, as with any
academic program.
Bylaw 3.409 l restricts the authority of the Board for Higher Education with respect to the expansion,
consolidation, relocation, change to a junior college level, or separation of a college or university from the
Synod to circumstances in which the Board for Higher Education has obtained prior consent by a twothirds majority vote of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod together with a
two-thirds majority vote of either the Council of Presidents or the appropriate Board of Regents. That
limitation, however, does not apply to termination of individual programs.
The same subparagraph of Bylaw 3.409 imposes further restrictions with respect to the closure of a
college, university, or seminary. Such closure requires a two-thirds majority approval of the Synod in
convention. Here again, however, no such restriction is placed upon the termination of an individual
program.
While the Commission therefore finds no prohibition of the discontinuance of the BA Deaconess program
at Concordia University, River Forest by the Board for Higher Education, for the reasons set forth above,
it should also be noted that Bylaw 3.409 imposes on the Board the overall responsibility to provide for the
education of ordained and commissioned ministers and other professional church workers for the Synod.
The Synod has expressly indicated its desire to have a deaconess training program and has expressly
identified throughout its Bylaws and many past synodical convention resolutions the importance of
deaconesses to the Synod. At present, Concordia University, River Forest has the Synod’s only BA
Deaconess program. Pursuant to Bylaw 3.409 a, b and k, the Board for Higher Education has the
responsibility not only to establish criteria for determining the ongoing viability of institutions, but also
the responsibility to develop detailed coordinating policies and procedures for the colleges and
universities of the Synod that include plans to provide for meeting the constituency needs and interests of
the Synod. This responsibility certainly includes a plan for providing for the education and training of
deaconesses, as repeatedly expressed in the resolutions of the Synod.
155. Appointments to Commission on Constitutional Matters (03-2337)
A member of the Synod, in a February 19, 2003 letter, called into question the legitimacy of an
appointment of a member of the Commission on Constitutional Matters in the event that all bylaw
appointment provisions are not followed.
Question 1:

If a person is appointed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) in violation of
Synod’s Bylaws, namely Bylaw 3.903 a 3, “in consultation with the Vice-Presidents of the
Synod” (p. 71, 2001 Handbook), is that person actually and properly to be considered a
member of the CCM?

Answer: The members of the Commission on Constitutional Matters are selected pursuant to the
procedures outlined in Bylaw 3.903. In paragraph a 3 of that bylaw, the President of the Synod, in
consultation with the Vice-Presidents of the Synod, appoints the members of the Commission from a list
presented by the Council of Presidents, which list is narrowed to five candidates for each vacant position
from a pool of nominees submitted by the District boards of directors. However, it is helpful to
understand that the Bylaws do not describe the manner or method of “consultation.” The Commission
also notes that “consultation,” which simply means to seek opinion or advice, is not the same as “mutual
concurrence” (also a bylaw phrase used elsewhere), which means to be united or in agreement as in action
or opinion. Any alleged violation of the process for selection of a member of the CCM should be
brought to the attention of the President of the Synod, the Vice-Presidents of the Synod, the Council of
Presidents, and the CCM itself for appropriate review and response.
120