LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2023, Page 186

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

186

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

simply have no regular convention in that triennium.
There remains the possibility, “in cases of urgent necessity,” for
specific business, and by the procedure specified (Const. Art XII
15) of calling a special convention of a district, and these are not
limited to the district convention year.
Question 4:

In the event that business ordinarily conducted
through the above physical meetings cannot be conducted by some other means, and physical gathering cannot be achieved within the time allotted in
the triennial cycle for each mechanism, what is the
result (e.g., for elected offices)?

Bylaw 3.2.4 provides for terms of office aligned with the regular
meeting schedule of the triennial cycle. Its subparagraph (f) provides that “[i]ncumbents shall serve until their successors assume
office.” Should a district be unable to meet in the current triennium, the current term of service of all elected incumbents would
be extended until the next election can take place and successors
can be inducted into office. The rules of succession and vacancy
appointment already in place in the districts would pertain, should
any incumbent be unable or unwilling to continue in office. As the
current term is, in a sense, being extended, any applicable term limits would not remove elected incumbents from office until the corresponding election can take place. As there are, in this situation,
no “pending successors-elect,” the usual limitations of Bylaw 3.2.4
(f) and (g) on the starting of new programs and the appointment of
new appointees during the “interim” would also not apply.
Should a district that fails to hold a regular convention within the
district convention year of the triennium consider it to be of urgent
necessity, outside the district convention year of the triennium and
in such a situation, to conduct elections, and if the proper procedure
would be followed (Const. Art. XII 15), a district could conduct a
special (physically convened) convention for this purpose.
Careful attention should be given by the districts and their officers,
boards, and commissions to report to the congregations on their
activities and the situation of the district, even if a convention is not
certain to take place or possible to convene.
Looking forward to the Synod convention, the principal required
function of district conventions is, in those seventeen or eighteen
districts electing representatives in a given triennium, the election
of members of the Synod Committee for Convention Nominations (Bylaw 3.12.3 [f]). CCM Op. 12-2653 indicated that when
a district convention has failed to elect a member of the CCN, the
district board of directors must fill the resulting vacancy “to fulfill
the district’s obligation to the Synod.” That provision would be applicable, should a district fail to meet in convention and elect its
representative.
Otherwise, the work ordinarily done by a district convention in
preparation for the Synod convention (consideration of reports,
submission of overtures, discussion and forwarding of suggestions
for triennial emphases) is possible to be done by other means (including congregations, circuit forums, church worker conferences,
and the district board of directors).

District President Authority in a Congregational
Controversy (20-2951)
Minutes of January 15–16, 2021
By an email of Sept. 16, 2020, a member of the Synod posed the
following opinion request to the commission regarding the author2023 Convention Workbook

ity of a district president, under Const. Art. XII 7 and Bylaw 4.4.6,
as the district president assists congregations having internal disputes. The commission solicited and received input from the Council of Presidents, consonant with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b), and initiated
discussion of the item in its October meeting. It now responds as
follows:
Question 1:

When a district president intervenes in an intra-congregation dispute, as long as the dispute does not
involve the doctrine or polity of the LCMS, is his
input binding or merely advisory?

Opinion: The district president, like the President of the Synod,
“has and always shall have the power to advise, admonish, and
reprove. He shall conscientiously use all means at his command
to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice” (Const.
Art. XI B 3) “within the boundaries of [his] district” (Const. Art.
XII 6). He shall “moreover, especially exercise supervision over
the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained and
commissioned ministers of [his] district and acquaint [himself]
with the religious conditions of the congregations of [his] district.
To this end [he] shall visit and, according as [he] deem[s] it necessary, hold investigations in the congregations” (Const. Art. XII
7). In this work, he is to “conserve and promote the unity of the
true faith,” “strengthen congregations and their members in giving bold witness,” and provide “evangelical supervision, counsel,
and care,” and “protection for congregations, pastors, teachers, and
other church workers …” (Const. Art. III). To this end he shall “in
his ministry of ecclesiastical supervision visit the congregations of
his district” (Bylaw 4.4.4) and “even without formal request therefor, may through the proper channels arrange for an official visit
or investigation when a controversy arises in a congregation … of
the district or when there is evidence of a continuing unresolved
problem in doctrine or practice” (Bylaw 4.4.6).
The question poses a false dichotomy in asking whether such input of the district president is “binding or merely advisory.” When
Const. Art. VII 1 states that “[i]n its relation to its members the
Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or
coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s
right of self-government it is but an advisory body,” this is not to
dismiss the advice, admonition, and reproof of a district president
as “merely advisory.” The duty of his office is to advise authoritatively on the basis of the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions—to include, as noted above, the practical application of these
to a pastor’s ministry and divine call and to any disputes that may
arise in a congregation.
The congregation will do well to weigh such worthy advice, counsel, and reproof, and to act as the Word and conscience require—for
the Word of God is surely binding. The Synod is, as Const. Art. VII
1 states, “but an advisory body,” but when its officers advise, counsel, and reprove from the Word of God and Lutheran Confessions,
this is not to be dismissed as “mere advice”; indeed, congregations
participate in the Synod principally to receive and provide for one
another such advice.
Const. Art. VII 1 does frankly acknowledge and assert the fact that
the district president does not possess directive control under any
“legislative or coercive [governmental] powers” held by the Synod
over congregations; such powers are explicitly disclaimed. What
action the congregation takes, therefore, on the basis of (or contrary to) the district president’s advice, counsel, and reproof is of
its own volition—which, while it may be captivated by the Word
of God or sensible persuasion through the offices of the district