LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 312

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

312 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS

Instead of entering into a step-by-step analysis of the
positions of the English District Commission on Adjudication,
the Commission on Constitutional Matters at this time
stresses the following:

1. The general purpose and objectives of the Commissions
on Adjudication are clearly spelled out in the Synod’s Hand-
book, Bylaw 8.01 (new numbering);

2. The jurisdiction and venue of the District Commissions
on Adjudication are also clearly spelled out in Bylaws 8.21 and
8.23;

3. In none of the above references is any authority or duty
given to a District Commission on Adjudication to overrule or
disregard an interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution made
by the Synod’s Commission on Constitutional Matters, espec-
ially an interpretation that has stood the test of challenge
before a convention of the Svnod and has been ratified by the
Synod (see also Bylaw 1.19 e);

4. Furthermore, it is improper and unacceptable for a
Commission on Adjudication, in deciding a particular case, to
speak on matters which are extraneous and not germane to the
only issue at hand—does or does not the congregation hold
membership in two church bodies?—and in which it has no
authority or duty to act.

In applying the above to the question specifically before us,
that is, the question of the forfeiture of membership in the
Synod as a result of dual membership, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters rules that since the Synod has clearly
spoken its mind in two successive conventions, the only
question which a Commission on Adjudication needs to answer
is the question of fact, namely, whether or not the congregation
(or individual) does indeed hold membership in two church
bodies.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters rules further
that if the case in question is given further consideration by the
District Commission on Adjudication or the synodical Com-
mission on Appeals, the decision of the Synod upholding
(through Dallas Res. 5-01 and 1979 Res. 5-08) the opinion of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters on dual membership
must prevail.

Dec. 12, 1981

Opinion re Status of Board
for Parish Services

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has been asked:
“Is the Board for Parish Services justified in regarding itself as
a new board with a right to establish and fill a new position of
Executive Secretary of the Board for Parish Services?”

The commission has also been asked to rule whether the
Implementation Committee acted properly in adopting a reso-
lution which is recorded in its minutes as follows:

In regard to the status of a staff person when his present contract

expires, the committee formally resolved that the contract will be

honored for the life of the contract. Thereupon the staff person
automatically goes under the principle of ‘serving at the pleasure of
the board” established in the newly adopted Bylaw (2.803). In other
words. if the board does not wish to continue his services, it is the
board's obligation to take terminating action with the approval of
the President (see Res. 2-11).

* * *

In reviewing the matter it is clear that Task Force II
proposed to the 1981 synodical convention the creation of three
new program boards (elected) and two new support services
boards (appointed) whose entire memberships were to be
elected or appointed in 1981 upon favorable action by the
convention.

This proposal, as far as the two appointed support services
boards were concerned, encountered no difficulty and was
approved by the convention.

The same cannot be said, however, of the proposal as it
concerned the elected program boards and specifically the
proposed Board for Parish Services.

In Section B, 5, subsections a, b, and c (1981 Workbook, page
45) of its report, Task Force II had recommended that approxi-
mately one-half of the membership of each proposed program

board should be elected in 1981 for five years and approxi-
mately one-half elected in 1981 for two years (all elected,
however, in 1981).

This proposal met with strong reaction from the Committee
on Convention Nominations on the plea that requiring all
members of the boards to be elected at the 1981 convention
placed too great a burden on the committee to provide an
adequate number of qualified nominees.

Nevertheless the floor committee in proposing Res. 2-08
accepted the proposal of Task Force II and recommended it to
the convention for adoption (Today's Business, Section A, page
48).

However, after the 1981 convention in Session 2 had
declined Res. 2-04, which called for the creation of three
program boards, the floor committee submitted Res. 2-04A to
carry out the convention desire that Youth and Evangelism,
which had been placed by Task Force II with the Board for
Parish Services, should be removed from that board and
continue as separate program boards, thereby increasing the
number of program boards from three to five. This resolution
(2-04A) was proposed in Session 5 and adopted in Session 6.

In drafting Res. 2-04A to meet the wishes of the convention,
the floor committee also decided to withdraw Res. 2-08 and
offered instead Res. 2-08A, which was also distributed in
Session 5 and adopted in Session 6.

One significant change introduced in Res. 2-08A has a
bearing on the issue at hand. Res. 2.08A now provided that
only approximately one-half of the membership of each of the
three program boards (Parish Services, Youth, Evangelism)
would be elected in 1981 and that incumbents whose terms did
not expire in 1981 would be carried over from the previous
Board of Parish Education and from the previous Board for
Evangelism and Board for Youth Ministry until 1983 to
complete their unexpired terms. The conclusion is inescapable
that with the retention of the Youth and the Evangelism
Boards and their removal from the Board for Parish Services,
and with the provision that incumbents of all three boards
were to serve out their unexpired terms, all three boards were
now looked upon as continuing boards with modified names
and programs.

* * *

In view of the legistlative history summarized above and on
the basis of the final wording adopted by the convention in Res.
2-08A (Proceedings, pages 138—139) as distinguished from the
original wording of Res. 2.08, the Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters holds that the Board for Parish Services isnot
a new board but the board formerly known as the Board of
Parish Education with a new name and with added responsi-
bilities; as such it does not have the right to establish and filla
new position of Executive Secretary of the Board for Parish
Services.

The commission also holds that the Implementation Com-
mittee exhibited the correct understanding in taking the action
quoted above from its minutes.

March 5, 1982

Opinion re Responsibility
for Development of New Agenda

A request was received for the commission to determine
whether the former Commission (now standing committee) on
Worship was to proceed with carrying to conclusion the
assignment of developing a new Lutheran Agenda or whether
this was now the responsibility of the Board for Parish
Services. The commission resolved upon the following reply:

1. Even after the last convention had restructured various
boards, thereby making the Commission on Worship a stand-
ing committee of the Board for Parish Services, the convention
nevertheless in Res. 3-13 later in the convention declared that
the development of a Lutheran Agenda was to be the responsi-
bility of the Commission on Worship and that the commission
was to carry it through to conclusion.

2. Inview of the principle that the Board for Parish Services
is to be the board which deals with the parishes through the
Districts, it might be advisable to have the method of field
testing determined as a mutual decision of both the Board for