# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 9 10 1990_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

not be enthusiastic about the form of government adopted by the congregation since it is of the opinion
that the form proposed by Abdon lodges too much decision making power in the hands of a small
minority. It is concerned about the lack of participatory function of congregation members which the
Commission believes is extremely important. Several suggestions were offered as substitutes for the
coordinator of lay ministry. It was suggested that consideration might be given to "coordinator of member
ministries" or "coordinator of coworkers in ministry" with the workers themselves being referred to as
"ministerial assistants" or "coworkers in ministry."
After reviewing the response, the Commission ratified it and directed the secretary to forward its
recommendation to the inquirer stating that his request should be taken to the district committee on
constitutional matters.
27. Preus/Board of Regents Reconciliation Committee (Ag. 1891) : A Reconciliation Committee had
been appointed by Dr. Bohlmann in order to bring about formal resolution of issues which existed
between the Board of Regents of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne and Dr. Robert Preus
who had been honorably retired by that Board as President of the institution. The Board of Regents had
chosen one member of this committee, Dr. Bohlmann had appointed one member when Dr. Preus failed
to select a member, and those two members had chosen a third member to serve on the committee. That
committee, through its Chairman, had forwarded a number of questions to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters relating to the procedure which should be followed. The questions which were
proposed were:
1

Is the Preus/Board of Regents Reconciliation Committee properly constituted? In other
words, is the appointment constitutional? Is the Committee legitimate?

2

Is there a time limit on the Committee's work? Are there any applicable limitations?

3. Must the reconciliation process involve the old Board or the new Board?
4. Is the current matter now before the Commission on Adjudication? Must the Commission on
Adjudication stand aside until the Committee has completed its efforts? Does our
Committee's work totally precede the involvement of the Commission on Adjudication even
though charges may have been filed "by one" with the Commission on Adjudication?
5. Must all "parties" to the case be identified as plaintiff or defendant before the reconciliation
process can begin (or be continued)? Must all "parties" to the case be identified as a plaintiff
or defendant even when a person has not received the charges directly? Or does a person
become a defendant when he has not ever received the charges?
By means of a telephone conference, the following opinion had been developed and was forward to the
Chairman of the Reconciliation Committee.

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
February, 1990
1. Bylaw 8.05,a states that opportunity to settle a matter (informal efforts at resolution of the issues,
informal reconciliation efforts) "shall be given to the district president, synodical President, or to the
chief officer of the organization owned and controlled by the Synod which is involved." The
Handbook is silent on which officer should deal with an issue involving a seminary president and the
Board of Regents. In this specific matter, the decision making process involves both a terminating