# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 21 22 1975_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

359. San Francisco Night Ministry (Ag. 671, 671 A to G): After some discussion the Commission finally
resolved to reply to President Jacobs' request along the following lines. The representatives of the
Commission returned with a generally favorable report and raised the possibility of returning to the
original opinion of the Commission regarding this ministry. However, in the course of further discussion
the Commission questioned whether it was really the Commission's responsibility to rule in this matter on
the assumption that it more properly belongs within the domain of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations. Involved are especially the questions: Are the churches with which the District
cooperates in this venture regarded as "heterodox" church bodies by the Synod? Is the Night Ministry
itself a missionary endeavor or not? Since you yourself are a member of the CTCR, the Commission
suggests that you ask that Commission to rule on those questions. If the CTCR should determine that the
church bodies involved are not to be regarded as heterodox and that the program itself is not a missionary
activity, the Commission on Constitutional Matters will in all probability rescind its second opinion and
return to its original opinion of several years ago. At the same time the Commission once again reiterates
its conviction concerning the worthwhileness of such a ministry and its hope that the District would be
able to take over this work entirely so that needless dissensions may be avoided and a true Gospel
ministry be established beyond any doubt.
360. Jaech Defense and Friedrich Paper (Ag. 738, 752): Attention was called to these two papers as
resource materials for the Commission.
361. Status of Rosenau as "Assistant Pastor" (Ag 754): The Commission took note of the clarification
sent by President Albin Stanfel of the Ontario District.
362. Removal of Head Pastor for Budget Reasons (Ag 799): President Herman Scherer had informed the
Commission of the action of a congregation in abolishing the office of head pastor for budgetary reasons.
He had raised four questions. The Commission's answers are as follows:
1.

"On the basis of their own constitution, may a congregation abolish the office of head pastor
for budgeting reasons?"
Answer:

2.

"Is this constitutional?"
Answer:

3.

The Commission holds that this is a question; which should be addressed to the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations since it is primarily a
theological question.

If the opinion of the CTCR is to the effect that such action is unscriptural, then it
is a violation of Article II of the Synod's Constitution.

"Is this a violation of the doctrine of the divine call as we have held it in the Missouri
Synod?"
Answer: See #1 above.

4.

"If the congregation refuses to rescind the motion, do I have the right to suspend the
congregation from membership because their act was not constitutional and because they
violated the doctrine of the divine call?"
Answer:

The Commission on Constitutional Matters would remind you that Article XIII of
the Constitution lists three causes for expulsion from membership: