# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 27 1993_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

seem to be answered by the phrase as found in Bylaw 6.11 c and 6.11 i. Bylaw 6.11 c states that,
"Nominees who allow themselves to be listed as candidates will be asked to pledge, if called [emphasis
added], to render a decision within 15 days of receipt of the call [emphasis added], unless granted an
extension by the Board of Regents."
Bylaw 6.11 i states, "The Board of Regents shall extend the formal call [emphasis added] promptly after
the election and submit its action to an official periodical of the Synod for publication."
In view of the above statements included in the bylaws, the question of whether or not Dr. Schmiel has
received a call is clearly resolved. Dr. Schmiel has received a call to serve as the President of Concordia
Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne.
With respect to the question of whether or not Dr. Schmiel is a professor, the Commission is unable to
provide a response since it is not privy to the details regarding the call which has been extended. Only the
conditions of the call as extended by the Board of Regents can determine whether or not Dr. Schmiel is a
professor.
29. “Blamelessness"of Life (Ag, 1953) : President Gerald Kieschnick of the Texas District had forwarded
a copy of a request for an opinion which had been forwarded to the Commission on Appeals asking for an
interpretation of the term "blamelessness of the life of such" as it refers to members of the Synod. The
Commission took note of the fact that it had not yet received a request for such an opinion from the
Commission on Appeals through whom that request is to be made. Since, however, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters had previously dealt with the phrase in relation to another matter it was agreed that,
merely for the purposes of information, that opinion could be forwarded to the Commission on Appeals. It
was emphasized that it should be made clear that the forwarding of this opinion is not in response to the
request from President Kieschnick but rather is merely for information which might be of interest to the
Commission on Appeals in the present instance. In reality, the Commission on Appeals is already in
possession of the opinion previously provided by the Commission on Constitutional Matters with respect to
the term, "blamelessness of the life of such."
30. Eligibility for Commission Membership (Ag. 1954) : A pastor who had been appointed to the
Commission on Organizations in the position of ordained minister had, since that appointment, accepted a
position as Administrative Assistant-Congregational Life and Stewardship for the Central Illinois District.
Since Bylaw 3.69 g states that district executives and staff shall not be "members of any other entity of the
Synod as identified in Bylaws 3.55 and 3.57" the question was raised as to whether he might continue to
serve as a member of the Commission on Organizations.
The Secretary reported that since receipt of this request for an opinion, the pastor whose membership was
under consideration had stated that he would be resigning from his position on the Commission on
Organizations following his installation as a staff member of the Central Illinois District on March 23,
1993. As a result, there was no need for the Commission to take action on this matter. The Commission did,
however, agree that it was proper for the person to resign under the circumstances.
31. Constitutionality of Congregation Action (Ag. 1955) : In addressing the Commission on
Constitutional Matters requesting an opinion, President Kieschnick of the Texas District asked whether or
not the Constitution of the LCMS is violated when one congregation of The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod in a metropolitan community relocates its church and school directly across the street from another
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation which has existed at its location for 40 years. Specific
questions addressed to this Commission on Constitutional Matters were: 1) Does this purchase of property
and intent to move a church and school directly across the street from an existing sister congregation violate
the Constitution or Bylaws of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod?; and 2) If there is a violation of the