# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 3 4 1985_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

the documents as they presently exist. It 'appears that there may be theological or structural issues which
require consideration by either the Commission on Theology and Church Relations or the Commission on
Structure.
126. Board of Directors' Authority and Responsibility (Ag. 1751): The Board of Directors of the Synod
had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to consider certain questions involving the
continued deficit funding of St. John's College, Winfield, Kansas, and St. Paul's College, Concordia,
Missouri. Some of the questions were related to the matter of agreements reached with St. John's College
in 1981 and possibly conflicting resolutions adopted by the convention in 1983. The Board of Directors is
concerned about the matter of prudent action and possible liability in the matter of funding institutions
which do not appear to be viable. Dr. John Schuelke and Dr. Norman Sell provided preliminary
background material for the discussion of this matter by the Commission.
127. Rescinding a Call (Ag. 1745, A,B): The Commission had received several requests relating to the
question of ''whether or not a divine call can be rescinded as a result of spurious charges made against a
pastor." In response, the Commission pointed out that a congregation is autonomous and therefore has the
authority to rescind a call. The propriety of doing so is another matter. It is the opinion of the Commission
that there may be theological issues involved which would require consideration by a group other than the
Commission on Constitutional Matters.
128. Rules of Procedure Conflict (Ag. 1747): A district president had asked whether it was the
responsibility of a Commission on Adjudication to determine whether informal efforts at settlement of
issues had been effective. It asked whether this was the responsibility of the district president or the
Commission on Adjudication. In response, the Commission replied that it did not believe that the Rules of
Procedure as outlined were in conflict with the Handbook stipulations regarding the responsibility of the
district president to seek reconciliation through informal efforts. Those informal efforts may be carried
out even though a case has been presented to the Commission on Adjudication. If informal efforts are
successful, it would appear that neither party to a case would seek to carry it forward, at which point there
would no longer be a case before the Commission for consideration.
129. Organization of Independent Campus Congregation (Ag. 1749): While recognizing the validity of
certain questions which were raised regarding the formation and franchise of a campus congregation, the
Commission believes that they are outside of the Commission's area of responsibility. The manner of
reception of a congregation into membership with the Synod is clear. Consequently, campus
congregations may become members of the Synod if they apply to the district or the Synod and are
accepted by a district or synodical convention.
130. Speaking for a Board and Standing Committees (Ag. 1750): Several requests had been received
regarding the authority of individual members or a chairman to speak for a board of the Synod. The
Commission ratified a response which indicated that only those authorized by the board to do so may
speak for it. In any other case, board members do not represent the opinion of the board or its decisions,
but are merely expressing personal views. Care should be expressed in presenting such views since they
are frequently misinterpreted and may be used to indicate dissension on a board.
A question had also been asked regarding the appointment and meeting of standing committees. In
response to the questions which were posed, the Commission chose to answer as follows:
2.57, b, does not apply to standing committees, having been omitted in 2.57, b, after having been
specifically referred to in 2.57, a. The Commission also is of the opinion that after having
completed a term of office, a member of a standing committee no longer has authority to sit on
such a standing committee.