# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 27 1993_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

either seeking membership or seeking to continue its membership. To speak only of "an orthodox
evangelical Lutheran Synod" is much too indefinite. If membership in the LCMS is desired, there
should be no reason for not saying so. Furthermore, I believe the proposed Article 8.0 in the attached
guidelines deals both with the issue of membership in the Synod and the possibility of withdrawing
from membership.
1.

I fail to see the value of the proposed change, particularly if the proposal cited above is followed. If
the proposed change is retained, at least one example should be cited of an instance where the
majority does not rule or where a specific majority such as two-thirds is required. The fourth
proposed change does this and perhaps that is what is meant by the phrase "unless otherwise indicated
in this Constitution."

The Secretary had also stated that if an official opinion was desired, it would be necessary to have the
request for that opinion in writing. That request had now been received.
In responding to the questions which had been addressed, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
decided to respond as follows:
While the Commission on Constitutional Matters does not believe that the right of a congregation to
withdraw from The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod would be hindered by secular or religious courts
given the congregational bylaw which provides for the withdrawal by decision of a given majority of
members, it does agree that there is no requirement for inclusion of a statement of membership in The
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in the constitution and bylaws of a congregation. If it describes its
doctrinal basis as that which is synonymous with the doctrinal basis of The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod, there is no reason why a congregation could not be accepted into membership in the Synod
without specific reference to that Synod in its constitution or bylaws.
At the same time, however, the Commission reminds the congregation that in joining the Synod it must
sign the Constitution of the Synod. In order to provide the authority for this, if the reference to
membership in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is not included in the constitution or bylaws, the
congregation must adopt a resolution to that effect. If it is a congregation which presently holds
membership in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and which deletes from its constitution all
references to the Missouri Synod per se, a resolution to the effect that the congregation, regardless of the
deletion, is retaining its membership in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod whose Constitution it has
signed should be adopted.
27. Membership Removal (Ag. 1951) : The Commission on Constitutional Matters had received a large
amount of material relating to the membership of Theodore Jungkuntz, who had been removed from
membership in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod some years ago. It had been contended that Rev.
Jungkuntz was improperly removed by virtue of the fact that his candidate status had not been extended
after a two-year period of time. The point was made that when he was originally placed on candidate status,
application for renewal of that status was not required before the expiration of a three-year period. In 1986,
however, the Bylaws had been changed to require application for extension of candidate status two years
after initial placement on that status. Material which had been forwarded indicated that the effective date for
the initial candidate status of Rev. Jungkuntz was September 12, 1985. Membership was listed as being
terminated on November 17, 1987. Also included was an application for extension of candidate status dated
October 26, 1987. The problem, briefly stated, was the belief on the part of Jungkuntz that he was
improperly removed because his candidate status had not expired on the basis of a three-year rule which
was in existence when he was placed on candidate status. It is his claim that he was removed on the basis of
a bylaw change which should not have been applied ex post facto. Since the time of his removal, Rev.
Jungkuntz had applied for reinstatement of membership but had been denied that reinstatement.