# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 9 1978_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

-5Mr. Draheim stressed that Districts will be free to join or not to join as members of the corporation, that
the corporation will be under the control of the Church Extension Board elected by the Synod, and that
the proposed action was in line with the Dallas convention directive.
Rev. Bauerkemper expressed his District's particular concern over centralization of power, no matter how
pressing the necessity, real or imagined. In their view only the Synod has the authority to develop a
separate corporation, not the Board of Directors or the Church Extension Fund Board. Since control
usually follows the dollar, the Synod should remain in control of the Fund.
In the discussion it was pointed out that the control by the Synod should not be placed into the Articles of
Incorporation or Bylaws of the corporation for this would only stimulate the line of questioning followed
by some State Security Commissioners, but that this could be spelled out very definitely in the Handbook
and also in any enabling resolution.
In executive session the Commission continued the discussion and drafted an opinion (attached to the
Minutes) to the effect that the creation of a separate corporation was not contrary to the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod provided that certain requirements were observed. This was to be sent to the Texas
District Board of Directors. A copy was also to be sent to the Church Extension Fund, together with a
covering letter in which the Secretary was asked to make the following two points:
1.

The Commission wishes to state that it is not at this time issuing a specific opinion on the
proposed Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of the proposed new corporation since it
understands that these instruments in fact are still in the process of refinement;

2.

That it might be well for the Church Extension Fund Board to consider the possibility of
indicating by name as the agent of the corporation not the Executive Secretary of the CEF
Board but the Treasurer of the Synod.

84. District President Candidate as Seminex Vicar Supervisor (Ag. 1296, A,B): Rev. M. H. Lehnhardt had
written stating that Dr. Richard Meyer, who had received the most nominations for District President of
the Southern District, had also had a Seminex vicar for quite some time. He asked which rulings of the
CCM might apply to the situation. He indicated that Dr. Preus informed him that Dr. Meyer's candidacy
should be challenged on the floor of the District convention. The Secretary had sent him a list of rulings.
The Commission resolved that no further action was necessary since the Secretary had sent pertinent
opinions, especially the "Opinion on Dissenting Groups" which was particularly appropriate, especially
its second last paragraph.
85. Michigan District Task Force (Ag. 1303): Rev. Heins, secretary of the Michigan District Task Force,
after seeing the caution published by the CCM regarding extensive reorganization of Districts before the
synodical Task Force has an opportunity to report its recommendations, had written to the Secretary
asking what the status of that District's own Task Force recommendations would be. The Secretary had
attempted to state that the CCM's caution was intended especially for Districts embarking on a major
study, that it would be a pity if the major study of the Michigan District would produce no results
whatever, that undoubtedly at least some of its provisions could be adopted at this time, and that the
District might well take action specifically pointing toward ratification or revision after the Synod has
taken action on the recommendations of its own Task Force. The Commission ratified this reply.