LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Sheet 385

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

376 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS

tion in a case and a layperson has received an unfavorable
decision from the Counselor and District President, it would
seem that the matter,ends there as far as the individual lay
member is concerned. However, those eligible to do so may
lodge with the First Vice-President of the District (Bylaw 5.13)
a charge of malfeasance (which is a new charge) against the
District President and/or Counselor. They may then also, if
denied, approach as appropriate a District convention, a
synodical convention, or the synodical President (see “Opinion
re Removal of District Presidents from Office,” Anaheim [1975]
Convention Workbook, pp. 486—487).

July 26, 1980

Opinion re Speaking Rights
of Uncertified Pastors

The question has been raised whether it is permissible for a
District convention to grant speaking rights to pastors who are
not on the clergy roster of the Synod.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has ruled
repeatedly, and the Synod in convention has subsequently
affirmed and approved, that such individuals can serve neither
as voting nor as advisory delegates to synodical or District
conventions. It is therefore obvious that they cannot be
granted unrestricted speaking rights or privileges.

The principal right of advisory delegates is to speak (Bylaws
1.63, 3.11). To grant the same right or privilege to those who are
not members of the Synod or otherwise ineligible would destroy
the constitutional concept of membership and of representa-
tion within our Synod. (See Constitution Article XII, 10, A, B.)

That certain individuals (such as other church body presi-
dents) are given a specific opportunity to address a convention
as a guest in a specified time slot is an altogether different
matter. The Synod does not grant unrestricted speaking
privileges to those who do not meet the requirements set forth
in the Constitution and Bylaws and any action of that nature
taken by a District convention is improper and void.

July 25, 1980

Opinion re Church Fellowship

The commission had been asked to rule on the constitu-
tionality of a resolution on fellowship adopted by a District
convention. The commission adopted the following opinion:

1. The first and second resolves are valid actions which a
District convention may take, namely, to petition the Synod for
action.

2. Uptothis time the congregations of the Synod have held
that the establishment of church fellowship should bea united
action of the entire Synod (Bylaws 1.21, 307 e, 16.03). ‘“‘The
practice (of) Christian fellowship” referred to in the third and
fourth resolves of the resolution would, therefore, need to
observe this commitment made by the congregations to their
sister congregations unless and until the congregations acting
in concert through synodical conventions adopt new
agreements.

3. Any interpretation to the contrary would make the
resolution at present unconstitutional. For example, if the
resolution is interpreted to mean “altar and pulpit fellowship,”
it is an unconstitutional action and, therefore, null and void.

July 26, 1980

Opinion re Election of Teacher Delegates
to Synodical Convention

The commission rules that teachers conferences may indeed
nominate teachers as delegates to a synodical convention as
long as the slate can be amended when the teachers meet at the
District convention itself and as long as the actual election
takes place at the District convention as stipulated in the
Bylaws. Voting delegates at a convention neither elect teacher
delegates nor ratify such action, since such action belongs
entirely within the purview of the teachers themselves.

July 25, 1980

Interpretation of
1979 Res. 6-04A (Saskatoon)

1. The last junior to enroll in the Saskatoon program should
be in the fall of 1980. Juniors in 1981 and in subsequent years
must enroll in the alternate program to be developed by the
BHE. In other words, the new program will begin with the
junior class in 1981, will have two classes in 1982, three classes
in 1983, etc.

2. On the other hand, it also seems clear that those who
have already enrolled at Saskatoon by September 1980 orin an
earlier year should be permitted to finish their course of study
at Saskatoon instead of transferring out to the new program.

3. The key to understanding the resolution is the final
resolved. A phasing-out is a gradual process. Furthermore, the
adding of an additional class each year in the new program
makes the intent of the resolution quite clear.

Jan. 31, 1981

Opinion re Separate Incorporation
of District Church Extension Funds

After creating the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—
Missouri Synod through the adoption of Res. 4-01A, the 1979
convention of the Synod immediately proceeded to adopt Res.
4-02, “To Assure Voluntary Nature of District Participation in
the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod,” to
wit, “That the Synod assure Districts that District entry into
the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod shall
be voluntary and only on the basis of the decision of the
individual District.”

The commission is aware of Bylaw 8.61 which provides that
Districts shall administer their church extension programs “in
conformity with policies established by the Synod’s Board for
Church Extension and in accordance with District
regulations.”

However, in view of Res. 4-02 it cannot be argued that any
policy of the Synod’s Church Extension Board can require
Districts to participate in the newly created Lutheran Church
Extension Fund—Missouri Synod. Participation must con-
tinue to be on a voluntary basis, and the decision to participate
lies solely with the District.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters expressed
grave constitutional concern when it was proposed in order at
least in part to avoid liability that the assets of the synodical
Church Extension Fund should be transferred to a newly
created separate corporation not directly responsible to the
Synod in convention. However, this proposal was finally
approved by the 1979 convention floor committee and adopted
by the 1979 convention.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters continues to
have grave concern over this matter. However, since the Synod
itself decided upon such a course of action, it is only logical that
the same privilege, prompted by the same reason (liability),
should be extended to the Districts acting through their
convention after appropriate review and approval by the
Synod and the District and acting in compliance with
respective state and federal regulations.

With this background the commission is faced with the
problem of the “policy” adopted by the Synod’s Board for
Church Extension March 2—3, 1979, and reaffirmed June 20—
21, 1980 (after the adoption of Res. 4-02 by the 1979 synodical
convention), prohibiting Districts from establishing such a
separate corporation.

The thrust enunciated both in the preambles and in the
resolves of that policy statement adopted by the Synod’s Board
for Church Extension is clearly to curtail such activity of a
District in order to encourage, promote, and perhaps even
compel all Districts to join the Lutheran Church Extension
Fund—Missouri Synod.

Res. 4-02, however, makes it plain that entrance into the
new corporation shall be “voluntary and only on the basis of
the decision of the individual District.”

The Commission on Constitutional Matters therefore holds
that the “policy” adopted by the synodical Board for Church
Extension March 2—3, 1979, and reaffirmed by it June 20—21,
1980, is in conflict with Res. 4-02 of the 1979 synodical