LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 130

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

130

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Opinion: No. Bylaw 3.10.5.5.2 (e) contains no provision for stopping an election.
Adopted February 28–March 1, 2014
Specific Ministry Pastor Resignation (14-2708)
With a February 19, 2014, email, a district president requested the
commission’s response to questions prompted by the resignation of
a specific ministry pastor (SMP) in his district. The specific ministry
pastor resigned his call shortly after his ordination and installation and
dropped out of the SMP program for health reasons without completing his final two years of seminary course work. The pastor of the
LCMS congregation that the specific ministry pastor now attends has
begun involving him in the congregation’s pastoral ministry and has
expressed interest in his retention on the ordained clergy roster of the
Synod. The district president requested the commission’s response
to the following questions:
Question 1: Is this specific ministry pastor, who has not completed
his academic responsibilities, eligible to remain on the
roster of the Synod as a pastor emeritus or other candidate status, given the “serious physical and health
problems” that prompted his resignation from his former
congregation?
Opinion: No, this pastor has not completed the requirements of the
SMP program. Although he received and accepted a call and was
granted roster status, that status was conditioned on his completing an entire course of study. 2007 Res. 5-01B, which established
the SMP program, requires: “Upon call and ordination, the student
shall complete the remainder of the Specific Ministry Pastor Program.” Likewise, Bylaw 2.13.1 requires specific ministry pastors to
have “completed the requirements for service as a specific ministry
pastor.” Res. 5-01B adds, “Refusal to complete the Specific Ministry Pastor Program would result in the pastor’s removal from the
Synod roster, at which point he is not eligible for a call.”
Question 2: Can this specific ministry pastor be used for Word and
Sacrament ministry, including full vestments, in an
LCMS congregation?
Opinion: No, since this pastor can no longer continue on the roster
of the Synod, he will no longer be qualified to serve a congregation
of the Synod. According to Bylaw 2.5.2, “Congregations that are
members of the Synod shall call and be served only by … ordained
ministers who have been admitted to their respective ministries in
accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws
and have thereby become members of the Synod.”
Question 3: Does the SMP program provide opportunity for an
ordained, installed, and resigned specific ministry pastor to continue the SMP program at a later time?
Opinion: 2007 Res. 5-01B adopted the SMP program “in principle”
and authorized the seminaries, the Board for Pastoral Education,
and the Council of Presidents “to implement it.” 2013 Res. 5-03E
specifically charged the Chief Mission Officer and one representative from each seminary, in consultation with the Council of Presidents, to “provide leadership, coordination, and oversight for the
Specific Ministry Pastor program.” Question 3 should be directed
to this committee.
Question 4: Can this specific ministry pastor who has resigned from
his assigned congregation after two years of the program
now apply for colloquy?
Opinion: No, as a rostered pastor of the Synod removed from the
Synod’s ordained minister roster, the only option for this pastor to
be restored to the roster must be via reinstatement (Bylaw 2.18.1).
Adopted February 28–March 1, 2014
2016 Convention Workbook

District Convention Delegate Representation (14-2718)
In an email dated May 29, 2014, a district president asked for
counsel from the commission regarding a three-congregation arrangement in his district, a “partnership” having been formed to “provide
pastoral ministry for the three congregations” and to “pool resources
(people)” to assist one with outreach activities, vacation Bible school,
etc. The partnership agreement states that one congregation calls the
pastor, who in turn provides pastoral care/ministry to the other two
congregations, including weekly worship services. The two congregations help to support the calling congregation in return for services
provided.
The district president added that each of the congregations in the
partnership believes that it is entitled to a lay delegate to the district
convention, since the congregations see themselves as unique entities with their own voters assemblies, officers, etc. and since two
of the congregations only “contract for pastoral services,” with the
congregation that called the pastor. This congregation alone would
be entitled to send a pastor delegate to the convention.
The district president requested a response to the following:
Question: Do I as district president treat this situation as a multicongregation parish entitled to one lay voting delegate
and one pastor voting delegate at our district convention,
or do I treat this situation as three separate congregations
with each entitled to one lay voting delegate and with
the calling congregation alone sending a pastoral voting
delegate to the convention?
Response: The Commission on Constitutional Matters has already
provided an extensive response to questions regarding multiplecongregation delegate representation at district conventions (Opinion 11-2618, provided in its entirety below). Although the size and
number of congregations involved may differ, the previous opinion’s response to the following Question also addresses the above
question:
3. A large congregation which does not need the financial support of
any other congregation, allows their pastor to provide pulpit supply
on Sunday afternoons for a small congregation which cannot afford a
full-time pastor. There are no other pastors available in the area.

Opinion: The Question speaks of “pulpit supply.” It also speaks
of “a small congregation which cannot afford a full-time pastor.”
Regardless of financial considerations, if the pastor is regarded by
the small congregation as its pastor and speaks of him as its pastor, and if he provides Word and Sacrament ministry, ministers to
the sick and dying, etc., this and the larger congregation are a dual
parish being served by one pastor and, therefore, a parish to be represented at district conventions by the pastor and one lay delegate.
Such lay representation will be shared in a manner that presumably
is fair and equitable for both congregations.
A summary response that addresses all district convention delegate representation questions is provided earlier in Opinion 11-2618:
“[T]he principle stands without exception: Two or more congregations being served by the same pastor constitute a parish with the
right of representation by one lay delegate and one pastoral delegate.”
83. Congregation Representation at District Conventions (11-2618)
In a letter dated October 14, 2011, a district president inquired regarding
exceptions to the standard definition of a “parish” as “two or more congregations served by the same pastor” when representation to the district
convention is being determined. In his letter he called attention to an
August 30, 1990, opinion of the commission (Ag. 1898 “Pastoral Voting
Eligibility”) in which a seminary professor was not granted voting privilege on behalf of a nearby congregation although he was serving the
congregation on a regular basis. The district president wrote: “Since the
CCM declared that a called pastor in one ministry (the seminary) could