# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 15 1996_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

congregations, especially as that involved the adoption of a new constitution. He noted among other things
that the constitutions of each congregation specifies that in order to effect an amendment, a two-thirds
majority approval is required. More than the two-thirds majority had adopted a resolution stating the desire
to unite. He also noted that a new constitution had been prepared which had been approved by the Southern
District's Constitutional Committee, but he was uncertain as to what sort of majority was needed for the
adoption of the constitution by the congregation or congregations. Specifically he asked,
In light of the congregations' resolution and our existing constitutions, what is needed for us to adopt a
new constitution? Will a simple majority of the combined congregation be sufficient? Will a simple
majority of the individual congregations be acceptable? Will a two-thirds majority of the combined
congregation be needed? Or will a two-thirds majority of the individual congregations be required?
In response to these questions, the Commission decided to reply as follows:
Meeting by telephone conference on July 15, 1996, the Commission on Constitutional Matters reviewed
your request for an opinion regarding the majority needed in order for two congregations to adopt a
constitution which would unite them into a single congregation. The Commission noted first that this
matter is really an issue which should be determined, if necessary, by the district Constitution
Committee. It is that group and the district Board of Directors which acts on the acceptance of
congregations into the membership of the Synod through the district. Nevertheless, in an effort to be
helpful, the Commission makes several observations.
1) While a larger majority might be desirable, the Commission is not aware of any requirement other
than a simple majority for the acceptance of a constitution forming a new congregation.
2) Since the two congregations continue to exist independently until a new congregation is
established, it would be appropriate for each to vote separately on the proposed constitution. The
Commission notes that each congregation has stated its "desire to have our congregations unite" and
the resolution called for the new congregation to "be formed." [Emphasis added] However, it would
also not be improper for both congregations to meet together and by majority vote determine
whether or not to accept, modify, or reject the proposed constitution. A case could be made for that
approach.
3) Finally, the Commission would observe that it would be the prerogative of the congregations
separately or together to determine if there is a desire to require more than a simple majority for
acceptance of the constitution and consequent formation of the new congregation. If that were the
decision of the congregations and the required majority could not be achieved, it would be a simple
step back to the continuance of existence as two separate congregations.
If, in the process of adopting a constitution, changes are made in that which has already been approved
by the district Constitution Committee, that Committee will have to be notified of the changes for their
approval.
What is being offered here is merely advice. You should be aware that the congregations are quite free
to approach this issue as they wish, subject to the requirements, if any, of the district Constitution
Committee.
55. Meaning of the Word "Clear" in Bylaw 3.928 as Related to Worship Materials (Ag. 2037) : In a
previous telephone conference held on May 8, 1996, the Commission had begun consideration of a request
from the President of the Synod, asking for an interpretation of the word "clear" in the bylaw which states
that the Commission on Worship is to "clear all literature related to corporate Christian worship in liturgy