LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 300

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

300 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Furthermore, it was reported that the District President had
sought to have the congregation use a reconciler, but that it was his
understanding that the congregation refused to do so. At this point
in time, the council and the pastor were saying that this was not so
and that they were willing to use a reconciler and, in fact, that is
what they wanted.

At the request of the “excommunicated” members, initial ef-
forts were made to constitute a Dispute Resolution Panel.

In view of the information which had been received and in view
of the developments which had taken place, the commission de-
cided to respond as follows:

Predicated upon the developments, the commission does not believe
that there is a need to respond to the questions at this time. Basically, the
commission believes that the Bylaws are clear, and it would be the re-
sponsibility of a Dispute Resolution Panel to determine whether those
Bylaws have been violated.

The commission would further note that it is not clear whether it is
the congregation which has forwarded the questions or whether they
have been forwarded by the individual signers or by the groups in the
congregation which they represent. Bylaw 3.905 d states that the Com-
mission is to

interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions upon
the written request of a member (congregation, ordained or com-
missioned minister), official, board, commission, or entity of the

Synod.

The commission is not in a position to respond to individual mem-
bers of or groups within member congregations of the Synod.

Adopted Oct. 22, 1995

Statute of Limitations

The commission had received the request for an opinion re-
garding the application of a statute of limitations to charges brought
against a pastor. The request was made by a Dispute Resolution
Panel at the request of the pastor against whom charges had been
brought. The commission, after reviewing the request, provided the
following opinion:

In responding to the question, the commission first notes that the
issue which is before the Dispute Resolution Panel is one of fitness for
ministry. In this regard, the preamble to chapter VIII of the 1992 Hand-
book clearly states that, “Fitness for ministry and other theological mat-
ters must be determined within the church.” The commission further
notes that the Bylaws place no limitation of time regarding considera-
tion of matters which relate to fitness of ministry. Consequently, the
commission concludes that while a Dispute Resolution Panel may in-
deed include time elements, manner in which allegations are brought
forward, and similar issues in arriving at its decisions, the fact that alle-
gations are barred from civil court by statute of limitations does not pre-
vent the church from dealing with them.

Adopted Nov. 4, 1995

Conflict of Interest

In a communication dated October 30, 1995, a seminary Board
of Regents had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to
render a clarification of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s
“conflict of interest” policy as expressed in 1995 Res. 4-O5A.
Specifically they asked the commission to pay particular attention
to the following two concerns:

1, Is there any special definition for “conflict of interest” as it per-
tains to The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod?

2. Please clarify “Synod or its entities or agencies” as mentioned
in no. 2 and 6 of the policy.

Responding to the questions, the commission noted first of all
that there is no particular definition for “conflict of interest” other
than that stated in Res. 4-05A of the 1995 convention.

In response to the second question, reference was made to
Bylaw 3.51, where the seminary is identified as an agency and to
3.55, where the Board of Regents of the seminary is identified as an
entity. Other entities of the Synod are identified in Bylaws 3.55 and
3.57. It was also noted that a further definition of entity may be de-
rived from Bylaw 3.69, especially sections b, c, d, e, f, g, i, j, and k.

Also in response to the first question, it was noted that in Bylaw
3.75 there is a conflict of interest if one were to hold two offices of
which one is directly responsible for the work done by the other.

Adopted Jan. 19-20, 1996

Voting District President in Election of Seminary President

In a letter addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters by the faculty of a seminary, an opinion had been requested re-
garding the identity of the voting District President in the election
of a seminary president. The letter was accompanied by a letter
from the faculty secretary, outlining his rationale for identifying
the District President voting in the election of a seminary president
as being the President of the geographic District in which the sem-
inary was located. A similar request for an opinion on the matter
had been received from a pastor in the Northern Illinois District.

In a personal letter to the faculty secretary, the Secretary of the
commission had pointed out that following the 1992 convention,
the commission in responding to a similar question had concluded
that since the Bylaw states that the Board of Regents is one of the
electors, “(the District President not voting with the board)” and
then continues, “the President of the synodical District or his offi-
cial representative with a distinct vote,” that the District President
referred to in both instances is that District President selected by
the Council of Presidents to serve as a member of the seminary
Board of Regents. It is not the President of the geographical District
in which the seminary is located.

That opinion had already been forwarded to the present Board
of Regents.

The faculty secretary had included seven items as rationale for
the view that the President of the geographical District should serve
as the elector in the election of a seminary president. These were:

1. Prior to 1992 everyone understood the “President of the synod-
ical District” as meaning the President of the synodical District
in which any given institution of the Synod was located; such
was, indeed, clearly the one intended sense of the phrase, and
such it still remains (sensus literalis unus est).

2. Subsequent, likewise, to the synodical convention of 1992 the
phrase has been so understood in connection with any presi-
dential elections elsewhere (as in a Concordia University).

3. Immediately following the alteration in the identity of the Dis-
trict President holding membership in the Board of Regents—in
the course of the synodical convention of 1992—the response to
a question addressed to the chairman of the committee which
had introduced the overture concerned shows that the commit-
tee had had no definite intention to alter simultaneously the
identity of the District President who would participate in the
election of the president of a seminary.

4. The Synod had a second opportunity to alter Bylaw 6.1] f in its
convention of July of 1995 and yet took no action in this direc-
tion, even though the Board for Higher Education had submitted
an overture to the Synod requesting an alteration in the Bylaws
which would have identified one of the electors as the District
President sitting on the Board of Regents (regardless of his
provenance).

5. The only reason for including a District President among the
electors of any synodical institution of education is that he is
responsible for the doctrinal supervision of the president and
faculty of said institution, so that, if the President of the geo-
graphical District be excluded from the election of the president
of a seminary, there is no reason to include the President of any
District in the process.

6. One of the points to be considered in the election of the Presi-
dent of a District containing an educational institution of the
Synod is that this man will thereby participate in any presiden-
tial election occurring in such an institution, so that the mem-
bers of the District concerned exercise, quite understandably,
some special responsibility with regard to an institution to
which they are more intimately related than anyone else. The
President of any District more removed, on the other hand, sits
on the board of a seminary purely by virtue of his election by