LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 309

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 309

13. May a pastor on the roster of the LCMS as a minister, ordained
be suspended and expelled from membership in Synod for pub-
licly stating that women’s suffrage is contrary to Holy Scrip-
ture?

The response to question 12 also constitutes a response to this
question.

Adopted Aug. 28, 1996

Permitted Actions of Suspended Pastor

A District President had posed the following questions for con-
sideration by the commission:

1. Would a pastor under suspension be allowed to participate in an
installation of another pastor at a neighboring congregation?

2. Would a pastor whose congregation is in a Lutheran school as-
sociation be allowed to participate in the installation of a teacher
in that school association?

3. Would a pastor under suspension be allowed to conduct chapel
for the school in this association?

The commission agreed to respond as follows:

The answer of the commission to your first question is no. How-
ever, with respect to questions 2 and 3, the matter is of a different nature
since, as stated, the association in which the congregation holds mem-
bership is served by the suspended member. Thus, the activities of the
school association are an extension of the ministry of the congregation
and its pastor.

In view of the above, it would be the responsibility of the President
of the District who suspended the pastor to inform the association so
that its rights, as well as those of the suspended member, are preserved
(Bylaw 2.25 d 3). The decision regarding the installation of the teacher
for the association and/or the conduct of chapel services at the associa-
tion school would appear to be that of the entity involved, in this case,
the association or those authorized to act in behalf of the association.

In conclusion, the commission would also note the relevance of 2.25
e as it relates to the matter of suspension and assumes these responsi-
bilities are being carried out, namely, that efforts are being made to min-
ister to the suspended member, that there is concern for his spiritual
well-being, and that efforts are continuing to resolve the matters which
led to imposition of the suspended status.

Adopted Aug. 28, 1996

District Conflict of Interest Policy

The President of a District had posed a number of questions to
the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the require-
ment of a signing of a conflict of interest statement by persons who
would serve as nominees for various positions on boards and of-
fices of the District. Questions were asked regarding whether this
signing of the statement could be required, whether persons who

refused to sign would be eliminated from further consideration, and °

if the signing of the conflict of interest statement could not be re-
quired, at what time would persons be required to sign the conflict
of interest statement.

In response to the questions which had been posed, the com-
mission provided the following opinion:

1. Can our Nominations Committee require that potential nomi-
nees sign our Conflict of Interest Policy as part of the nomina-
tion process (as opposed to signing it after they are elected)?

There is nothing in the Bylaws which would prevent a nomina-
tions committee from using the signing of the conflict of interest
policy as a criterion for nomination. However, the commission
does not believe it is a wise procedure and rather than requiring
a signing in advance, would encourage the Committee to notify
all who are being considered for nomination that if they are
nominated and elected, they will be required to sign a conflict of
interest statement. Unless that approach is taken, it is possible
that good candidates could be eliminated by default, e.g., lost in
the mail, simply overtooked, etc. Furthermore, there may be
questions relative to the policy which are not easily answered
by others than members of the board on which one would serve
if elected.

2. If someone refuses to sign the form, can they be eliminated from
further consideration for an elected position within the District?

The commission believes its response to the first question also
responds to this concern. It would note, however, that the refer-
ence is to consideration by the Nominations Committee and not
to consideration by the convention, which may add to the slate
of nominees provided by the committee.

3. If we cannot require that a person sign the form prior to the time
of their actual nomination, by what time must they sign the
form?

The phrase “cannot require” is also dealt with in question 1. Be-
fore participating in the decision-making process of a District
board, commission, or administration as an officer, the person
should be required to sign the policy. This could involve logis-
tical problems since those elected and present are usually in-
stalled at the time of the District convention. However, it is the
principle of being involved in the decision process or adminis-
tration noted above which should govern. The commission
would also note that this is in agreement with point 8 of the Dis-
trict’s conflict of interest policy.

Adopted Oct., 23, 1996
Dissenting View Regarding 1995 Res. 3-05

In a letter to the commission, a pastor had indicated that in his
opinion Res. 3-05 was confusing because it indicated that dis-
agreement regarding the matter of woman suffrage in the church, as
well as the holding of certain positions, was not divisive of fellow-
ship. It was noted that if a person followed the procedures for ex-
pressing dissent, it would be possible that the position of the Synod
would still not be changed while the dissenter also retained his po-
sition on the issue. The question then arose as to whether or not,
since the matter was not divisive of fellowship, the person who had
followed the process for dissent would be free to teach his posi-
tion. In responding to the questions which had been raised, the
commission first agreed that the particular resolve in question ap-
peared to be confusing. Nevertheless, it also stated that it believed
it could be properly understood and was not contradictory to the
other resolves of the resolution. In its response, the commission
stated the following:

The commission concludes that the very fact that provision is made
for dissent and the proper procedure for expressing it implies that not
every matter on which one dissents is divisive of fellowship. Neverthe-
less, because the members of the Synod seek to express their common
faith publicly, it is imperative that such dissent be given careful consid-
eration in an effort to achieve objectives | and 6 as found in Art. III of
the Constitution. These are stated as

1. Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6: 1
Cor. 1:10), work through its official structure toward fellowship
with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense
against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy.

6. Aid congregations by providing a variety of resources and op-
portunities for recognizing, promoting, expressing, conserving.
and defending their confessional unity in the true faith.

The fact that one who dissents from the position of the Synod does
not prevail, i.e., that the position of neither the dissenter or the Synod
has changed, does not mean that the dissenter is free to teach the dis-
senting view. Bylaws 1.09 b and 2.39 b and c are quite clear on this
matter. They state

1.09 Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements

b. Doctrinal resolutions may be adopted for the information,
counsel, and guidance of the membership. They shall con-
form to the confessional position of the Synod as set forth in
Art. II of its Constitution and shall ordinarily cite the perti-
nent passages of the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions,
and any previously adopted official doctrinal statements or
resolutions of the Synod. Such resolutions come into being in
the same manner as any other resolutions of a synodical con-
vention and are to be honored and upheld until such time as
the Synod amends or repeals them.

2.39 Relation of the Synod to Its Members

b. The Synod expects every member congregation to respect its
resolutions and to consider them of binding force if they are
in accordance with the Word of God and if they appear ap-
plicable as far as the condition of the congregation is con-