# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 25 26 1980_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Commission on Constitutional Matters expressed grave constitutional concern when it was proposed
in order at least in part to avoid liability that the assets of the synodical Church Extension Fund should be
transferred to a newly created separate corporation not directly responsible to the Synod in convention.
However, this proposal was finally approved by the 1979 convention floor committee and adopted by the
1979 convention.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters continues to have grave concern over this matter. However,
since the Synod itself decided upon such a course of action it is only logical that the same privilege,
prompted by the same reason (liability), should be extended to the Districts acting through their
convention after appropriate review and approval by the Synod and the District and acting in compliance
with respective state and federal regulations.
With this background the Commission is faced with the problem of the "policy'' adopted by the Synod's
Board for Church Extension March 2-3, 1979 and reaffirmed June 20-21, 1980 (after the adoption of
Resolution 4-02 by the 1979 synodical convention) prohibiting Districts from establishing such a separate
corporation.
The thrust enunciated both in the preambles and in the resolves of that policy statement adopted by the
Synod's Board for Church Extension is clearly to curtail such activity of a District in order to encourage,
promote, and perhaps even compel all Districts to join the Lutheran Church Extension Fund Missouri
Synod.
Resolution 4-02, however, makes it plain that entrance into the new corporation shall be "voluntary and
only on the basis of the decision of the individual District."
The Commission on Constitutional Matters therefore holds that the "policy" adopted by the synodical
Board for Church Extension March 2-3, 1979 and reaffirmed by it June 20-21, 1980 is in conflict with
Resolution 4-02 of the 1979 synodical convention and cannot be used to preclude the action contemplated
by a District to incorporate separately its District Church Extension Fund.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters at this time is not ruling on the meaning and scope of the
word "policy" as used in Bylaw 8.61,
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Herbert Mueller, Secretary
July 26, 1980

Opinion Re Cases Before District Commissions of Adjudication
In answer to five questions raised by a District Commission of Adjudication, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters has replied as follows:
1. It would seem that individual lay persons have access to the synodical procedures of adjudication
only in cases of excommunication (Bylaw 5.03a), in cases which may result in the expulsion of a
member (congregation, pastor, teacher) from the Synod (Bylaw 5.llff) and in cases involving their
own synodical employment (Bylaw 5.21d, 5.25d). A layperson's principal forum for complaints
against the pastor and against his congregation is the congregation itself, He may also appeal for
assistance to the Circuit Counselor and to the District President. Except for the three cases noted