# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 24 25 1976_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

At approximately 5:45 it finished its draft and turned to the other agenda items which are listed below.
However, at the dinner table several thoughts were explored further and it was decided to reconvene and
to revise the draft formulated during the afternoon. The Commission therefore met again in the evening at
9:00, moved to reconsider the earlier draft, and made certain changes in it, especially by substituting the
final two paragraphs for the final paragraph in the original draft. At 10:45 the entire document was finally
adopted. During the course of all of these votes H. Mueller abstained from voting. The finished draft is
attached to the minutes.
145. Other Business: From approximately 5:45 to 6:45 the Commission devoted itself to some of the
other agenda items as listed below.
146. President Zeile and President Brockhoff Letters (Ag. 1076C, 1076A): These two District presidents
had asked for help in carrying out the ruling which had not yet even been printed in The Lutheran
Witness. The Secretary had indicated that the ruling itself would make it plain that District presidents
should make an effort to win once again people who have decided to join the AELC. The Commission
ratified his reply.
147. Protests Re AELC Opinion (Ag. 1076, 10766, 1076H, 1076J, 1094, 1107): Rev. T.H. Miles of
Bensenville, Illinois (1076) had alleged that the ruling showed lack of concern for people. President
Charles Mueller of the Southeastern District (10766) claimed that the Commission was placing a deadline
date on pastoral care which was unrealistic. Pastor Norman Hattendorf had written to Dr. Preus (1076H)
and had called the matter intolerable. Rev. David Peyer of San Bruno, California (1076J) had written a
thoughtful letter about the implications for the right to dissent. Secretary Theo. Iverson of the
California-Nevada District (1094) had taken strong exception to regarding the AELC as a church before a
constituting convention and incorporation and that he had engaged legal counsel. The Orlando Circuit
Pastoral Conference, Samuel L. Hoard, Secretary (1107) had claimed that the CCM exceeded its authority
in setting a deadline for implementation of the opinion. The Commission resolved that its action at this
meeting with reference to the "full force and effect" date of the opinion seems to satisfy all of these
concerns.
148. Elwyn Ewald Inquiry (Ag. 1076D): The Commission took note for the record of this telephone
conversation with the Executive Director of the AELC regarding the CCM ruling on membership in the
AELC. He indicated basic agreement with the CCM's thinking that one could not belong to two church
bodies at one and the same time.
149. Are ELIM Members Affected by the AELC Ruling? (Ag. 1076E, 1085): Mr. David M. Morris of
Seattle, Washington, and Rev. Robert W. Baum of St. Ann, Missouri, had raised this question. The
Commission ratified the Secretary's replies to the effect that the ruling applied to the AELC and not to
ELIM itself.
150. Are Overseas Missionaries Affected? (Ag. 1084, 1084A): Rev. Harlan Harnapp of North Platte,
Nebraska, had raised this question with respect to the AELC opinion. The Secretary had replied that the
ruling speaks specifically of the AELC but that the Board for Missions was also working on the earlier
opinion that it was improper for individuals to belong to two church bodies. The Commission ratified this
extended reply.
151. Can CCM Set Implementation Date? (Ag. 1086): Rev. John J. Kucharik of Oviedo, Florida, had
asked Dr. Preus, with a carbon copy to the Secretary, by what authority the CCM sets implementation
dates. The Commission resolved to merely note this for the record.