# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 27 1987_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Secretary had provided a response indicating that since other portions of the Constitution identify
specific offices which may not be held by women, the statement was not only permissible but proper. It is
the congregation's right to identify other offices which it may not want women to hold. Since the decision
of elders is subject to the approval of the voters' assembly, the rights of the congregation are protected in
the procedures provided for dealing with positions which may be established in the future but are not yet
foreseen.
The Commission ratified the personal response of the Secretary.
46. Inter-Lutheran Campus Ministry (Ag. 1808,A,B) : Rev. Martin Taddey, a pastor in the CaliforniaNevada-Hawaii District, had contacted the Commission on Constitutional Matters asking for an opinion
regarding the constitutionality of a district providing support for an Inter-Lutheran Campus Ministry
which did not appear to be in conformity with the position of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. He
had asked the Commission to rule on the following two questions:
1. Is it a violation of the Constitution of the Synod and a violation of both the Bylaws of the
Synod and the district for the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the LCMS to support
financially, with moneys given by member congregations of the LCMS, CNH District,
ministries of denominations and to support church workers that are not in pulpit and altar
fellowship with The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod?
2. Is it incumbent upon a District Board of Directors to follow a previous ruling of the synodical
CCM/regarding campus ministry?
Similar questions had also previously been addressed to the Commission by Pastor Taddey and responses
had been provided.
In response to the present request, the Commission decided to response as follows:
In response to your letter of March 3, 1987, in which you had posed two questions to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, namely
1. Is it a violation of the Constitution of the Synod and a violation of both the Bylaws of
the Synod and the district for the California-Nevada-Hawaii District of the LCMS to
support financially, with moneys given by member congregations of the LCMS,
CNH District, ministries of denominations and to support church workers that are not
in pulpit and altar fellowship with The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod?
2. Is it incumbent upon a District Board of Directors to follow a previous ruling of the
synodical CCM/regarding campus ministry?
The Commission response as follows:
1. The Commission has clearly spoken on the above matter on March 9, 1984 in item 5
of its minutes in a manner which we think is clear and needs no further interpretation.
(Copy enclosed.) You will note, our answer is in response to an exact duplicate of the
question you asked in question 1 of your present correspondence. If you have
difficulty in interpreting our response, you may and are encouraged to ask specific
questions. But to repeat the same question is an exercise in redundancy.
2. In response to question 2, it is obvious from an examination of the Bylaws of the
Synod, specifically 3.533 b, (which has been part of our Bylaws for a considerable