# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 3 1988_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

had not been revised and that the term "layman" often, if not always, meant "layperson." If the latter were
the case, a man or a woman could serve in a position. In forwarding the request to members of the
Commission, the Secretary had noted that references to boards and commissions in Chapter III of the
Handbook had been revised with the substitution of the word "layperson" for "layman." Since reference to
membership on Commissions on Adjudication and the Commission on Appeals are found in Chapter
VIII, it might be possible that this change in terminology was simply forgotten. Specific reference was
made to the fact that neither Board of Directors nor Commission on Theology and Church Relations
membership is reserved for males.
In responding to the question, the Commission noted first, that in many respects the function of the
Commission on Adjudication and Appeals is an extension of the function of Boards of Elders. Activities
of the Board of Directors and the Commission on Theology and Church Relations did not appear to fall
into that same category. The Commission therefore decided to respond by pointing out that it had
carefully considered the bylaws and had concluded that the bylaws relative to Commissions on
Adjudication and the Commission on Appeals are specific. The Commission on Constitutional Matters
cannot look behind them to determine what the intention of the Synod was with regard to membership on
these entities. In the absence of any unequivocal expression,. the Commission therefore declines to
change the bylaws or to allow for the broad interpretation of the term "layman" as some would suggest.
The Commission further notes that the specific expression had survived two conventions without a call
for change in the terminology and concludes that if it is to be changed, the change must be made by action
of the convention.
132. Convention Delegates - Election Procedure (Ag. 1851) : A letter had been received from a pastor
of the Northwest District, indicating that the election of delegates for the synodical convention for his
particular circuit had been carried out in an irregular manner. The election had taken place at the district
convention rather than at a circuit forum by specifically identified congregation representatives as
required by the Bylaws. A protest to the circuit counselor resulted in the inclusion of this protest on the
agenda for the circuit forum. At the circuit forum, the circuit counselor informed the forum that in a
conversation with the district secretary, he had been informed that if the circuit forum voted to affirm the
action taken by the circuit delegates at the district convention, this procedure would suffice. The forum
voted to affirm the action taken at the district convention. The pastor was now asking the opinion of the
Commission regarding the validity of the election which had taken place.
The Commission determined to respond as follows:
Bylaws contained in the Handbook of the Synod are clear in identifying the procedures to be
followed in the election of voting delegates for the national convention of the Synod. These
procedures are to be followed precisely and delegates improperly elected may not be seated.
Based on the information contained in the letter requesting a response of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, the Commission concludes that if the facts are as stated, the delegate is
not properly chosen and cannot be seated. In arriving at this conclusion. the Commission wishes
to make clear that it assumes that what occurred was the product of ill informed instruction.
Granted that the procedure followed was an honest error, however, the practice cannot be
allowed. Simple affirmation by the circuit forum of what has occurred does not correct the matter.
Since the delegate and alternate position is now, in effect, vacant, Bylaw 3.05 f should now be
followed which calls for the filling of a vacancy "by the District President in consultation with the
respective circuit counselor(s)." Given the degree of departure from the regular practice, it can be
assumed that the circuit counselor, before consulting with the district president, would seek to
determine the will .of the congregations before making an appointment. In seeking the will of the