# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 11 12 2000_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

Major summary sections added throughout the proposed Handbook to facilitate the division of
bylaw and policy/procedure materials should be removed as unnecessary.
Cosmetic editorial changes should be reconsidered to avoid unnecessary change and to prevent
the inadvertent introduction of confusion and inconsistency.
Care should be taken that a uniform and even universal system of numbering of sections and
paragraphs be used throughout the proposed Handbook.

186. Review of Council of Presidents Call Rubrics Document (00-2217)
The Clergy Call and Roster Committee of the Council of Presidents requested a review of the Council’s
working document, “Rubrics Governing Call and Placement Procedures for Ministers of Religion—
Commissioned.” The Committee also forwarded a series of questions that surfaced during the Council’s
discussion of the document at its November 2000 meeting.
After reading through the document, the Commission made the following observations:
1. The equating of a “Call” and an “Appointment” or “Contract” (p. 1, lines 36-40; page 3, lines
15-18; and page 4, lines 5-8) blurs distinctions and raises concerns. Resolution 6-14 of the 1981
convention of the Synod does include the statement: “Offers extended to eligible persons but
erroneously referred to as ‘appointments’ or ‘contracts’ are also to be considered calls.” At the
same time, the 1981 Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, “THE
MINISTRY, Offices, Procedures, and Nomenclature” states, “The term ‘call’ should be used
for those who have specifically been equipped to perform certain ecclesiastical functions and
have made a commitment to dedicate their lives to that service….The term call should not be
used where such commitment is lacking, and those who serve the church other than under a call
should be referred to simply as ‘lay workers….Those who are ‘called’ must be under the
supervision of the whole church.”
The CTCR study that is currently underway regarding the “call” should also be taken into
consideration, as should the Commission on Constitutional Matters decision 00-2193 which
identifies authorized calling entities. Finally, legal counsel also should be consulted due to
potential Internal Revenue Service ramifications.
2. It should be added on page 2, line 34, that a District President is the chief executive officer of a
District according to Bylaw 4.71, a.
3. The term “lay teachers” is defined differently in different places in the document, e.g., page 3,
lines 6-11, and page 6, lines 37-42. In addition, the statement on line 6 of page 3 which speaks
of “teachers who have been certified by the church” should rather read, “teachers who have
been declared qualified by an authorized synodical institution” (Bylaws 2.09, a; 7.21, 1).
4. It is recommended that lines 27-31 on page 4 not be included. It is to be assumed that proper
reasons and a spirit of Christian love and concern will be present.
5. “On occasion” in line 1 of page 7 is understated to the point of being less than true. Lines 3-4
might also be strengthened to include a role for the congregation and even the church at large in
making participation in a colloquy program possible.
6. A significant question is raised by line 21 of page 9, specifically, what authority does the
District President have in the process. Bylaw 2.11, b, provides for consultation with the
President of the District in which a candidate is to be placed, whereupon “his suggestions and

193