LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 312

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

312 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

In view of these Bylaws, it is permissible for the LCEF, acting as
the synodical Board for Church Extension, to locate a representative in
the District to aid the District in developing and implementing a coop-
erative and coordinated effort for church extension activities. It may
not, however, locate an LCEF representative in a District which is not a
member of LCEF to solicit funds for LCEF unless that is done in coop-
eration with the District.

Adopted March 7, 1997

Handbook Requirements for Boards
and Other Issues in District Bylaws

A large number of proposed amendments to District Bylaws
had been forwarded for consideration by the Commission on Con-
stitutional Matters in accordance with the Handbook requirements.
It was suggested that before responding to individual District pro-
posals, it might be helpful for the Commission on Constitutional
Matters to develop a response which would be useful to all Dis-
tricts as they considered their proposals. Concerns had especially
been expressed regarding the fact that some Districts appear to be
moving in the direction of eliminating boards and commissions and
moving to the process of dealing with issues on the basis of ad hoc
committees or task forces.

In order to provide some guidance to the Districts, the commis-
sion offered the following opinion to be shared with all District
presidents:

Over the past years a number of Districts have moved toward a re-
structuring which, in some cases, is a modification of their present struc-
ture and in others is restructuring of a more radical nature. In many re-
spects this was a result of restructuring taking place at the national level,
as well as encouragement through synodical resolutions to seek the
most effective and efficient form of structure which would enable the
District to carry out its mission and ministry.

In the initial process of reviewing some proposed District Bylaw
changes, the Commission on Constitutional Matters has identified con-
cems which it believes must be addressed. In doing so, it must be re-
membered that the commission is constrained to work within the realm
given it, namely, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. It is not
making a judgment regarding the desirability or effectiveness of struc-
tures which are proposed.

One of the concerned questions which has arisen is whether a Dis-
trict may operate with a single board, e.g., a Board of Directors and no
other elected or appointed boards. In researching the Constitution and
Bylaws for an answer, the commission determined that such a structure
was apparently never contemplated by the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod. The assumption that Districts would be structured with
boards and commissions which would relate functionally to such boards
and commissions at the national level is integrally entwined through-
out the Constitution and Bylaws. Examples of these are the following:

Constitution Art. XI 4—“Additional officers, boards, and com-
missions are elected by the Districts as they are required for the ex-
ecution of the business of the Districts.”

Bylaw 1.07 d—“... National boards and commissions obtain
counsel from District boards in developing programs, and District
boards maintain communication with and provide for utilization of
applicable programs of their national counterparts ...”

Bylaw 1.07 e—... Staff ordinarily serves as the liaison between
the national and District program boards.”

Bylaw 4.11 d—“The District shall utilize boards and commis-
sions to fulfill the objectives of the Synod and to carry out the deci-
sions and programs of the District ...”

Bylaw 4.11 e—“... Staff represents its respective board or com-
. mittee ...”
Bylaw 4,97 Provisions

a. Each District shall provide through its structure for the fol-
lowing functions:

« Adjudication

* Church Extension

* Communications

¢ Congregational Constitutions
¢ Congregational Services

* Human Care Ministries

- Missions
¢ Stewardship and Financial Support

b. A District may provide for the election or appointment of
such other boards and commissions as it deems necessary.

c. Unless otherwise specified or permitted by the Bylaws, ex-
ecutives and staff on the District level shall not be members
of the board or commission under which they serve.

These provisions, as well as others which could undoubtedly be
cited clearly, point to the fact that under the present Constitution and
Bylaws, Districts are assumed to be structured with boards and com-
missions and staffs, all in the plural and that contemplation of a District
structure with a single board is in conflict with the Bylaws of the Synod.

Having said all this, the commission does not believe that change
in structure should be avoided or unnecessarily delayed if such struc-
ture is more effective and efficient in carrying out Gospel ministry. It
does, however, believe that the mechanisms for orderly change should
be followed and that such orderly change must take place through
amendment of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Until that oc-
curs, it is assumed that Districts will continue to elect or appoint boards
and commissions as reflected in the synodical Handbook.

Adopted March 7, 1997

Art. VI 2 b and Joint Services

A pastor had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to re-
spond to the following question:

Does Art. VI 2 b of the Constitution forbid joint services with all
congregations that are not in church fellowship with our Synod? Specif-
ically, would this article of the Constitution forbid a congregation of
the LCMS from having a joint service with a congregation of the
ELCA?

In researching this matter, the Commission referred to Res. 3-25 of
the 1977 convention titled, “To Speak Regarding Lutheran/Non-
Lutheran Weddings.” In it the following statements are found:

WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations has
stated that “the matter of Lutheran ceremonies is not a question to which
the right of the congregation to be the judge of the expediency of the
resolution as applied to its local condition (Bylaw 1.09 b) is applicable,
but rather a situation in which a congregation is called upon to make
application of the conditions of membership to which it has agreed in
Art. VI of the Constitution” (1973 CW, p. 47); and

WHEREAS, The Council of Presidents has stated that participation in
ecumenical marriage ceremonies should “not be as co-officiant, wor-
ship leader, or celebrant, but should be arranged in such a way that it is
not an official part of the worship service, nor a solemnizing or cele-
brating of the marriage” (1973 CW, p. 44); therefore be it

Resolved, That we affirm the validity of Art. VI of the Constitution
of the LCMS; and be it further

Resolved, That we expect our pastors and congregations to follow
this article with respect to mixed wedding ceremonies.

If this is true with regard to such services as wedding cere-
monies, surely the same principles would apply to joint congrega-
tion services.

In addition, in 1991 ina statement regarding unionism and sep-
aratism in a document entitled Jnter-Christian Relationships: An
Instrument for Study, the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations provided an “exegesis” of Art. VI which is of great in-
terest.

On the basis of these and similar statements made over the
years, the Commission on Constitutional Matters concludes that
joint services with congregations which belong to a group with
which the Synod is not in church fellowship are prohibited. Since
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is not in fellowship with
the ELCA, Art. VI of the Constitution would forbid a congregation
of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to hold a joint service
with a congregation which holds membership in the ELCA.

Adopted March 7, 1997

District President’s Role in Call Process

A pastor had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to
provide an opinion with regard to certain questions pertaining to the
role of the District President in the congregational calling process. Re-
sponding to the request, the commission issued the following opinion: