LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 306

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

306 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

in order for the convention or anyone else to do anything re-
garding the Herman Otten case until that occurs? Is Res. 7-18A
in conflict with Res. 5-30 of the 1965 synodical convention
which declared the Herman Otten case closed?

3. Can we (the Special Committee) appropriately suggest. as an
aid to possible discussions between Herman Otten and the sem-
inary, that one trained in the synodical dispute resolution process
be used as a moderator?

Responding to these questions, the commission offered the fol-
lowing opinion to be included in the letter to the special committee:

Before proceeding with a response to your questions, the commis-
sion wishes to emphasize that Res. 7-18A stated emphatically that the
matter dealt with is to be concluded “in accordance with the Bylaws of
the Synod.” The commission can only respond by reference to them
even though the resolution also stated that “any solution achieved be
viewed as unique to this case without any precedential value.”

In response to your first question, the commission concludes that
Herman Otten does not meet the eligibility requirements for admission
to the colloquy program which are in existence since the 1995 synodical
convention. Of those Bylaws cited in your question. only 6.91 and 6.93
d appear to be relevant. Bylaw 6.91 1 a states that those considered eli-
gible to apply are “ministers who are in good standing in other Christian
church bodies ...”” Herman Otten is a pastor serving a congregation of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. He is not a minister of any
other Christian church body and, therefore, does not meet the require-
ment for eligibility.

Also eligible to apply for colloquy on the basis of Bylaw 6.91 bis a
layman “licensed for such [Word and Sacrament] ministry by the Dis-
trict President” as one who is eligible for admission to the colloquy pro-
gram. Herman Otten does not meet this requirement and apart from the
question of licensing, the question must also be asked whether the cri-
terion of “layman” is met.

With respect to your second set of questions regarding whether Res.
7-18A of the 1995 synadical convention either constitutes, or in effect
constitutes, a rescinding of 1965 Res. 5-30, the commission concludes
that it does not. If anything, it merely raises the question of whether the
matter should be reopened since the committee is to study the issues
and materials, attempt to reach a solution, and make recommendations.
The cleanest and clearest thing would be for the convention to state that
the 1965 resolution is hereby rescinded. But even that would again place
the issue of certification before the faculty since any action taken is to
be in accord with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

With regard to the final question, if the issue is one of discussion
only, there would be nothing wrong with someone, a reconciler per-
haps, serving as a moderator. This would not be someone who would
make a judgment or decision but strictly, as noted, a moderator. If it
were done, it would be based on an agreement of both Herman Otten
and the seminary representatives to use these services. In the entire
process it must always be remembered that the issue is not a matter of
reconciliation or compromise, but rather it is the issue of judgment re-
garding qualification for the office of the public ministry of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Adopted July 15, 1996

Status of Emeritus Pastor

A letter had been received from a Circuit Counselor, request-
ing an opinion from the Commission on Constitutional Matters re-
garding certain issues relating to the service of an emeritus pastor
and the status which he would hold. The questions which were ad-
dressed and the response which was given by the commission after
consideration was as follows:

1. If a congregation extends a call to an emeritus pastor, even
though the expectations on the part of the congregation are for
less than full-time service, does this alter the status of the emer-
itus pastor in any way? (L.e., forfeit “emeritus’”’?)

The response of the commission to this question is “no.” The
only effect might be on retirement income if the call is for ser-
vice of more than 20 hours per week. That. however, would be a

as do other pastors who are the full-time resident pastors, in
spite of the emeritus’ part-time actual service?

The response of the commission to this question is “no.” Previ-
ous opinions issued by the commission concluded that a pastor
may not both be retired, i.e., emeritus, and still be in charge of a
congregation. The constitution defines one category of advisory
member as “ministers not in charge of congregations.” This mat-
ter may, however, require future consideration as more and
more smaller congregations are served by pastors who have
elected retirement. It will involve reversing a previous opinion
of the commission or amendment of the Constitution to elimi-
nate or clarify the provision.

3. If a congregation extends a “contract for services” to a retired
pastor, would that be any different from a formal call, replete
with “call” documents?

The commission also responds to this question with a “no.” It
has been possible in the past to extend a call with a contract at-
tached. By convention action the decision was made that the
contracts of teachers who are eligible for calls but who are con-
tracted are to have these contracts considered as calls. The same,
it would seem, would apply to emeritus pastors who are con-
tracted.

4. If an emeritus were to accept a “formal call,” would that alter
his retired status with regard to Concordia Retirement Plan? If
so, in what way(s)?

This question has been dealt with in question | above. If the pas-
tor works and is paid for more than 20 hours per week, he would
probably not be considered retired under the Pension Plan for
Pastors and Teachers (PPPT) and would not be eligible for that
portion of his retirement benefits. If he has applied for Social
Security, that too could affect his retirement income if he were
to earn more than the allowed amount under IRS regulations. It
would be best to contact Worker Benefits Plans directly on this
issue.

5. How does our understanding of Art. XIV of The Augsburg Con-
fession line up with the practice of “contract for services”?

The commission concludes that this is a matter which is beyond
the purview of the Commission on Constitutional Matters and
should be directed to the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations.

Since some of the concerns reflected in the questions are not clearly
addressed in the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions of the Synod, the
commission would encourage the congregation or congregations in-
volved to take them to the convention of the District and/or the Synod
through appropriate resolutions. The Commission in particular recog-
nizes the fact that more and more small congregations may be served by
retired pastors is a matter that could well be addressed.

Adopted Aug. 28, 1996

Dispute Resolution Process Procedures
A District President had forwarded to the commission the fol-

lowing questions:

A. Does Bylaw 8.21 f allow the pastor of a neighboring congrega-
tion or any other individual to intrude himself in a local dispute
on the grounds that he is providing assistance according to the
terms of Bylaw 8.21 f?

B. What is the proper application of Bylaw 8.21 f to the various
phases of a mediation and reconciliation effort?

1. Does Bylaw 8.21 f apply to informal mediation efforts?

2. Does Bylaw 8.21 f apply to formal mediation and reconcilia-
tion efforts, as well?

3. Does Bylaw 8.21 f apply only to a hearing before a Dispute
Resolution Panel?

4. Does Bylaw 8.21 f apply equally to all phases of a mediation
+ and reconciliation effort?

The opinion which the commission provided with respect to

matter to be determined by the Worker Benefit Plans of the
Synod.

2. If.an emeritus pastor accepts such call as mentioned in no. | and
is the sole pastor of said congregation, does he then have a vote

question A is that the commission concludes that neither the pastor
of a neighboring congregation or other individual should intrude
himself into a local dispute. To “intrude himself” implies that he is
not even providing the assistance sought by a party as stated in
Bylaw 8.21 f. Ata certain point in the dispute resolution process