# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 17 18 1987_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Northwest District document. Further, it was noted that it was interesting that the Handbook is explicitly
quoted in several places in the document from the Northwest District but that the precise language on this
matter which has been affirmed by several synodical conventions has not been included. A letter to Pastor
Rush is to include a statement indicating that a response to the Commission's concerns would be
appreciated.
54. Transfer of Congregations (Ag. 1811) : Several requests had been received regarding the possibility
of transfer of congregations from one district to another without synodical convention approval. These
requests included a request for transfer of Trinity Lutheran Church of Burlingame, California, from the
English District to the California-Nevada-Hawaii District and the transfer of St. John The Baptist
Lutheran Church, Emporia, Virginia, from the SELC District to the Southeastern District. President Hinz
of the Southeastern District had quoted Bylaw 4.05 which he felt granted the authorization to a district
president to receive congregations by transfer from another district.
In personal responses, the Secretary had indicated that he did not believe that this was possible since the
Bylaws clearly indicate that the Synod determines the boundaries of the districts. While it is true that
Bylaw 4.05 also encompasses the transfer of congregations, it does not specify how that transfer is to be
effected. That seems to be governed by Bylaw 4.03 c and is supported by the fact that another bylaw,
specifically Bylaw 2.43, deals with the transfer of individual members of the Synod and the procedure to
be followed in effecting the transfer. There are no parallel bylaws relating to the transfer of congregations.
The opinion which was provided also indicated that if the Board of Directors of both districts in which the
transfer of congregations was involved would agree to the transfer, it might be possible to operate as
though the transfer had already occurred even though certain other formal action at the synodical
convention would need to take place to complete the transfer action. In some ways, this would be similar
to the manner in which the congregations who wish to join the Synod were formerly received by a District
Board of Directors pending district convention action.
The Commission ratified the responses of the Secretary and additionally pointed out that until
congregations are formally transferred by synodical convention action, congregations do not have a vote
in the districts to which they are seeking to transfer. Bylaw 4.03 c is applicable since the transfer of
congregations in itself a realignment of the district.
55. Appeals Procedure (Ag. 1812) : Since several questions had arisen with regard to the interpretation
of Bylaw 2.27 f, the Secretary had asked the Commission to interpret this particular section of the
Bylaws. In his request, he noted that it has been suggested that the section is to be interpreted to mean
that;
a) If the district president has declined to commence an action to terminate a member, the
complainant may appeal directly to the synodical President; or
b) If the district president simply takes no action whatsoever within a certain period of time, the
complainant may appeal to the synodical President.
An alternate interpretation assumes that the district president may exercise one of three options:
a) Decline to commence an action to terminate;
b) Suspend; or
c) Decline to suspend