LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 304

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

304 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

woman’s suffrage since the Synod has taken the position that it
is not contrary to God’s Word.

Adopted May 8, 1996

Congregational Elections

A pastor had forwarded to the Commission on Constitutional
Matters a number of questions for consideration. They were raised
because of the fact that the congregationa! constitution required
election of officers in April and that date had been passed without
the election taking place. As a result, the following four questions
were posed:

1. Based upon our constitution (art. VII), can a “special” meeting
establish a new “regular” meeting for the purpose of electing
church officers since the April date has passed by?

2. If not, does this mean that the existing council members can re-
main in office until the next regular meeting which occurs in
April 1997?

3. If so, would IJ, the pastor, have to install them again?

4. In your opinion, is absentee voting a bad idea?

After reviewing the questions and their implications, the com-
mission decided to respond as follows:

Before responding, the commission would note that it ordinarily
does not consider questions regarding individual congregational consti-
tutions since its responsibility is limited to the interpretation of the Con-
stitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. Questions relative to
individual congregations are the primary responsibility of the District
Committee on Constitutional Matters.

Although this commission lacks authority to render a binding opin-
ion in your case, in an effort to be helpful the commission would offer
the following observations:

In response to questions | and 2—

a. If the document provided is the totality of the constitution and
bylaws, there is no provision governing the question of whether
officers continue in office until their successors are elected. Nei-
ther is there a reference to Robert's Rules of Order which spec-
ifies that.

b. Since, or if, there is nothing in the governing documents of the
constitution and bylaws which is controlling, it would appear
proper to refer to art. VI which calls for a congregational ma-
jority to decide issues. In combination with art. VIII, this would
allow a majority of the congregation to decide in a special meet-
ing how to proceed.

c. Assuming the entire governing document has not been made
available and that there are provisions for amendment, the con-
gregation could hold a meeting to amend its bylaws and then
proceed to carry out its election on the basis of the amended by-
laws.

In response to question 3—

It would not seem proper to install officers again if they are sim-
ply continuing in office until their successors are elected.

In response to question 4—

It should be noted first that the bylaws make no provision for
absentee ballots and without such an express provision absentee bal-
lots are not permitted. Normally absentee ballots are not permitted
since such persons would not have been present for any discussion
of the issues preceding the ballot.

The commission would make one additional observation unrelated
to a specific response to questions posed. A Christian congregation is
the witness to the Gospel in the community where it exists. Its mem-
bers are expected to give a good witness to those “outside.” It is there-
fore incumbent upon them to maintain good order in the conduct of
their affairs so that the church is “above reproach.” It is thus of vital
importance that the members in Christian love seek to resolve any dif-
ferences which they may have in a way which brings glory to God
rather than resolving them on the basis of power or personal vindica-
tion.

Adopted May 8, 1996

Expulsion of a Pastor

A letter had been received from a lady, who described herself as
one who had been asked by members of a congregation to write to
the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the expulsion
of a pastor from the roster of the Synod. The pastor had been sus-
pended by the District President and ultimately a hearing had been
held before a Dispute Resolution Panel regarding the question of
whether the action of the District President should be upheld. The
Dispute Resolution Panel ruled in favor of the District President.
The letter indicated that it was her opinion and those whom she
purportedly represented that this matter had not been dealt with
properly.

In reviewing this matter, the commission first noted that the By-
laws limit the action of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
to questions which are posed by members of the Synod, namely,
congregations, ordained or commissioned ministers, or by officials,
boards, commissions, or entities of the Synod. It further noted that
full opportunity had been provided the pastor to avail himself of
the dispute resolution process and since a decision had been made
on this matter, the issue was moot at this point. In view of these
facts, the commission decided to respond as follows:

In its meeting by telephone conference on July 15, 1996, the Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters reviewed your request of May 5,
1996. In doing so, it was aware that the Bylaws only allow the com-
mission to respond to questions posed by members of the Synod, that is,
congregations and ordained or commissioned ministers. Because of that,
the commission recognized that it really has no authority to respond to
your questions.

The best way, and that provided by the Synod, is to deal with issues
such as you have raised through the dispute resolution process. In that
process questions which arise can be addressed in a way which avoids
confusion of the issues and delay in arriving at a resolution of them. In
the course of the process there is provision for addressing questions to
the Commission on Constitutional Matters.

The pastor had the opportunity to avail himself of the dispute reso-
lution process, including addressing questions to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, and to appear before the panel to present his po-
sition. He chose not to do so. Unfortunately, as a result a final and bind-
ing decision on the issues was made without his participation. Since that
has occurred, the commission can only conclude that consideration of
the matter about which you requested an opinion is moot.

Adopted July 15, 1996

Uniting of Two Separate Congregations

A pastor had written to the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters, asking a number of questions regarding the unification of two
separate congregations, especially as that involved the adoption of
a new constitution. He noted among other things that the constitu-
tions of each congregation specifies that in order to effect an
amendment, a two-thirds majority approval is required. More than
the two-thirds majority had adopted a resolution stating the desire
to unite. He also noted that a new constitution had been prepared
which had been approved by thé District’s Constitutional Commit-
tee, but he was uncertain as to what sort of majority was needed
for the adoption of the constitution by the congregation or congre-
gations. Specifically he asked,

In light of the congregations’ resolution and our existing constitu-
tions, what is needed for us to adopt a new constitution? Will a simple
majority of the combined congregation be sufficient? Will a simple ma-
jority of the individual congregations be acceptable? Will a two-thirds
majority of the combined congregation be needed? Or will a two-thirds
majority of the individual congregations be required?

In response to these questions, the commission decided to reply
as follows:

Meeting by telephone conference on July 15, 1996, the Commis-
sion on Constitutional Matters reviewed your request for an opinion re-
garding the majority needed in order for two congregations to adopt a
constitution which would unite them into a single congregation. The
commission noted first that this matter is really an issue which should
be determined, if necessary, by the District Constitution Committee. It
is that group and the District Board of Directors which acts on the ac-
ceptance of congregations into the membership of the Synod through