# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_April 27 1979_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

-31.

The preamble refers to the Synod as a servant structure which has been created by the
congregations; this can raise some difficulties involving "agency" concepts. Heretofore it has
always been stressed that the congregations, pastors, and teachers are the Synod and have not
simply created another agency like LCUSA.

2.

The historic role of the pastor in the affairs of the Synod, long regarded as an extension of the
mission and ministry of the Lutheran congregation, will be destroyed if in the exercise of the
franchise of the congregation the pastor of the congregation can be replaced by another kind of
church worker.

3.

The Task Force proposals are fragmentary. It is difficult to see how all bylaws can be drafted
only on the basis of the decisions made at this convention. The bylaws themselves might lead
into areas which are not constitutional or advisable.

4.

The view was expressed that changes in the Constitution should be made only very slowly and
after overwhelming evidence that they need to 'lie made. Attention was called to the letter
written by Senator Ervin to Thomas Jefferson after the Watergate debacle: "It (the U.S.
Constitution) worked!"

5.

The floor committee will need to remember that ours has been a representative type of
government. If, therefore, certain proposals are made, they may require still additional
constitutional amendments (e.g., direct election of officers by the congregations instead of by
their representatives).

6.

The oft repeated statement that, "No one has any authority between conventions to make
decisions" is held by the CCM to be completely groundless. The boards and commissions of the
Synod are empowered to make decisions. Furthermore, if there is lack of clarity the CCM can
always be asked for an interpretation. In addition, Bylaw 2.89 c specifically states that if there is
a conflict between two boards or commissions of the Synod, the Board of Directors is
empowered to make a final determination. Finally, if there is no other recourse, the Bylaws (2.29
c) bestow upon the President of the Synod executive powers that he can exercise in consultation
with a proper, related group, with the provision (a good one) that his decision is always
appealable to the next convention. Somehow this myth of "no possibility of decisions between
conventions" needs to be laid to rest. Furthermore, if the assembly is designed to take care of
this alleged problem, the question arises, "Who makes decisions between the semi-annual
meetings of the assembly?" (A box within a box within a box, etc.). .The teacher franchise
question is particularly fraught with danger. It can perhaps be held on the basis of the language
of the Constitution that the Constitution itself distinguishes between "ministers" and "parochial
school teachers."

183. Convention Overtures (Ag. 1353): The Commission took a look especially at the following
overtures:
5-06

Two questions need to be asked when a congregation applies for membership: Is its
constitution acceptable? Are any other objections valid? In the cases coming before the
Dallas convention the answer to the second question was in the negative; the District
committees had already answered the first question in the affirmative. However, the question
still remains if a District Constitution Committee refuses to give an evaluation of an applicant
congregation's constitution, does the Synod have the right to press for an answer to the