# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 24 1998_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Missouri Synod. The letter from the congregation president indicated that they did not believe proper
procedures had been followed prior to the issuing of this directive and, in addition, they believed that action
by the synodical convention relating to issues of dual membership should take precedence. The resolution
which was adopted indicated that the Secretary of the Synod was to determine which congregations held
dual membership and that district presidents were to notify these congregations that they had 18 months in
which to make a decision regarding the church body in which they would hold their membership.
In responding to this request for an opinion, the Commission replied as follows:
At its meeting on August 24, 1998, the Commission on Constitutional Matters reviewed your letter of
July 22, 1998. In doing so, the Commission concluded that it was not necessary to speak to the issues
involving sections of Bylaw 2.27 cited in your letter.
Its conclusion was based on the fact that by its action at the synodical convention, the Synod stated its
position regarding action to be taken with respect to congregations holding dual membership. That
action called for in Resolution 7-12 supersedes any other action and establishes a new date and
procedure to be followed in dealing with this matter. Consequently, the Commission considers the letter
requiring United Lutheran Church, Manteca, California, to make a decision by August 31, 1998,
regarding its membership to be of no effect. The newly designated procedure is prevailing in this
matter.
1.90. Seminary Professor as Synodical Vice-President (Ag. 2119): In a letter received from a seminary,
the Commission had been asked whether it was possible for a seminary professor to serve as a synodical
vice-president without having a conflict of interest. In issuing its opinion, the Commission stated the
following:
This letter responds to your July 25, 1998 correspondence. That letter inquired whether a seminary
professor can serve as a synodical vice-president without having a conflict of interest.
The answer to your question is yes.
The Commission is of the opinion that Bylaw 3.75, a, does not apply to this circumstance, since a
seminary professor is not elected or appointed in the sense in which those terms are used in Bylaw 3.75,
a, that section's use of those terms being in the sense of positions elected by the Synod in convention or
appointments made by the President of the Synod as provided in the, Bylaws. The Commission also
does not believe that a seminary professor holds office in the sense that the term is used in Bylaw 3.75,
a, that term also being in the sense of an office that is elected or appointed in the manner previously
stated.
The Commission believes that the bylaw most directly applicable to this question is Bylaw 3.69, g,
which specifies offices that executives, faculty, and staff on the national or district level may not hold.
That bylaw, in turn, refers to Bylaws 3.55 and 3.57 for a list of entities of which such persons may not
be members. Bylaws 3.55 and 3.57 do not refer to the offices of the various vice-presidents as offices
which fall under this prohibition. Thus the office of vice-president would be one to which a seminary
professor could be elected.
The Commission also observes that Bylaw 3.71, d, prohibits the use of information acquired while
carrying out synodical duties to the detriment of the Synod, its entities or agencies. The Commission
notes that if a seminary professor were to become a vice-president of the Synod, it is conceivable that
he would have the opportunity to be involved in issues or controversies which affected the seminary.
Bylaw 3.71, d, as well as good judgment and discretion, would require the individual to abstain from