# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 10 11 2009_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

104. Lutheran Church Extension Fund Policy Manual Review (08-2530)
After review of the Board Policy Manual of The Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod, the
commission made the following observations and recommendations:
•

Under “1. Desired Outcomes Policies,” the first statement referring to the mission statement
should also reference Bylaws 3.6.4 and 3.6.4.5.1 as contributing to the agency’s desired
outcomes.

•

Under “2.5 Board Self-Review,” such review should also include focusing on fulfilling Synod
bylaw expectations.

•

Under “2.7 Executive Committee of the Board,” Policy 2.7.3.1 should also make mention of the
requirement of Synod Bylaw 1.5.5.1 (a) (3) for a comprehensive five-year review.

•

Under “3.2 Actions Requiring Board Approval,” Policy 3.2.2.4 should more accurately reflect the
provision of Policy 2.9.1 that the board ratifies these audit committee appointments that are
actually made by the chairman of the board.

•

Under the same section 3.2, Policy 3.2.3 governing the granting of Recognized Service
Organization status should name The Lutheran Church Extension Fund Board of Directors as the
granting agency, since such granting privilege belongs only to program boards and synodwide
corporate entity boards (the “operating boards” specified in Bylaw 6.2.1 [c]). The bylaw reference
in the policy (13.03) should be updated to read “Bylaw section 6.2.” This same concern that it is
the LCEF Board that grants RSO status exists later in “4.15 Executive Limitation Policies” for the
Board for Church Extension, which section would better be placed under the responsibilities of
the LCEF Board of Directors.

•

The “Mega-Limitation” paragraph under “4. Executive Limitations Policies” should include, in
addition to the Constitution and Bylaws, reference to the resolutions of the Synod.

•

Under “4.3 Organizational Structure,” the reference in Policy 4.3.2 to other Synod “entities”
might more appropriately be “agencies” as defined by Bylaw 1.2.1 (a). The same may also be true
of Policy 4.5.2.3. In both cases, “entities” would be appropriate if the congregations of the Synod
are meant to be included, since congregations are not agencies of the Synod.

•

Under “4.13 Conflict Resolution,” the bylaw reference in Policy 4.13.1 should be updated to
Synod Bylaw section 1.10.

105. Commission on Worship Materials (09-2547)
A pastor of the Synod in an e-mailed letter dated January 31, 2009, submitted questions regarding the
Commission on Worship’s request for doctrinal review assistance in the preparation of their response to
2007 Resolution 2-02A, which called on the commission to produce a list of contemporary songs for use
in congregational worship. The pastor submitted two related questions to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters.
Question 1: Is the “Song Evaluations” produced by the Commission on Worship subject to Bylaw 1.9.1.1
(g) as claimed by the Office of the President of the Synod (ex post facto) or to Bylaw
3.9.3.2.2 in light of the fact that the Commission on Worship submitted it to doctrinal review?
Opinion: The report by the Commission on Worship evaluating contemporary worship songs issued in
response to 2007 Synod convention Resolution 2-02A “To Provide Guidance and Direction for Use of

71