LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 118

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

118 SYNODICAL REPORTS

d. to edify and support one another in the work they share;

e, to serve as the Board of Assignments for the first calls of candidates tor the offices of ordained and commissioned ministers and to han-
dle or assist with placement of other professional church workers;

f. to carry out such assignments as the Synod may give to the Council from time to time.

The TF recommends no change in items a. through e. of the listing above. Item c. (“to counsel with one another on matters regarding
the doctrine and administration of the Synod and its Districts”) should, if anything, be underscored. This provision reflects the fact that most
COP members (all except the President and Vice-Presidents of the Synod) are first and foremost District Presidents charged with the re-
sponsibility to exercise supervision over the doctrine and life of the congregations and rostered workers of their Districts. The one historic
executive duty of the Council of Presidents, church worker assignment and placement, is found in item e.

Attention can and should be given to various responsibilities that have accrued to the COP under item f. Removing or reassigning
some of these obligations can help to maintain it as primarily advisory in nature. The overarching question that the TF asked in consider-
ing such “item f” responsibilities was: why should a group that is primarily advisory exercise this function? Why should it not be done by
someone else? That is, the TF thought the burden of proof should rest with anyone wishing to contend that the COP should exercise a par-
ticular nonadvisory or nonconsultative function. If, as in the instance of candidate placement (item e), the TF finds good reason for the COP
to continue to exercise a function, no change is recommended.

The TF withdraws the recommendation contained in its preliminary report that the COP cease participating in appointing members of
the Concordia University System (see current Bylaw 3.405). Nonetheless the TF remains concerned, for example, that meeting with the
Council of Members may very well not constitute the best use of time for busy District Presidents and perhaps others. Accordingly, TF has
addressed a letter to the Board for Higher Education questioning the cost-effectiveness of the Council of Members and raising the prospect
that the BHE look into disbanding it.

Recommendation regarding Council of Presidents Appointment of CTCR Members

The TF recommends that the Synod in convention elect three of the four members (one ordained minister and two laypersons) currently
appointed by the COP. Under this proposal, half of the CTCR’s voting members would be appointcd and the other half elected by the
Synod in convention. Several responses to the TF’s preliminary report, including one from the CTCR. have urged retaining the present
Bylaw, which authorizes the COP to appoint 4 of 16 voting CTCR members.

The TF is aware that when the Synodical Survey Commission proposed the creation of a Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions in 1962, it suggested that approximately one-quarter of the CTCR’s voting membership be appointed by the COP. The Survey Com-
mission stated no rationale for this proposal in its report. In fact, it held that the duties and responsibilities of the “College of Presidents”
should remain unchanged, even as it acknowledged that appointing members to the proposed CTCR would constitute a new function for
the College. (At the time the College of Presidents’ only appointive power was to appoint an Editorial Board with the approval of the
President and Vice-Presidents of the Synod. See 1962 Reports and Memorials, 243, 251-52.)

In formulating its preliminary recommendation, the TF again asked: if the COP is primarily advisory, why should it appoint several
members of the CTCR? The TF recognized a reason for the COP to continue appointing one District Presidcnt to the commission—that col-
leagues on the Council come to know one another and their abilities as few others do. But the TF did not see why it was preferable that
three other voting CTCR members also be COP appointees.

A number of responses to the TF’s preliminary report assert that by appointing these three members of the CTCR—as opposed to the
TF’s recommendation that the Synod in convention elect these members—the COP exercises a valuable “check and balance” function. The
TF observes that “checks and balances” are functions appropriate to branches of government. These functions are carried out within a
branch of government or between branches.

The COP is not a “branch” of our synodical government, however. It is primarily advisory in nature. Certainly it is not coequal in au-
thority with the Synod in convention. By using the “checks and balances” language, respondents have insisted in effect that by appointing
four CTCR members, the COP prevents the Synod in convention from somehow overstepping its appropriate role. The TF disagrees with
this analysis and finds it a highly significant reason to maintain its original recommendation that the COP appoint to the CTCR only one
current District President.

Recommendation regarding Other Council of Presidents Appointments
The TF is submitting an overture (below) to amend the synodical Bylaws in connection with the following matters:

1. Selection of synodical convention locations: reassigning the current role of the COP to the synodical Board of Directors, the TF thinks
it more fitting for this role to be played by the BOD, the custodian of the Synod’s property.

. Appointment of members of the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM): the TF thinks it redundant for the COP to ratify the ap-
pointment of the CCM after it develops and presents the list from which the appointment is made.

3. Appointment of District Presidents to serve on seminary Boards of Regents: the TF observes that the Synod currently has two ways of
utilizing the services of District Presidents on Boards of Regents. In the case of colleges and universities, the President of the District
where the institution is located serves on the board. On the other hand, a seat on cach seminary board is occupied by a District President
other than the President of the geographical District where the seminary is located. These District Presidents are elected to the seminary
boards by the COP. The TF does not find sufficient reason for these two different arrangements to exist side-by-side. Its recommenda-
tion restores a single design by which District Presidents serve on the boards of synodical institutions of higher education. This is the
model currently in place for the colleges and universities, with the President of the District where the institution is located serving on the
board.

4, Assignment of vicars: vicars are students in training. They are responsible to the seminaries at which they are enrolled, and they are su-
pervised by the pastors under whom they serve. They are not members of the Synod and are not under the direct ecclesiastical supervi-
sion of District Presidents. Therefore the TF thought it appropriate that the COP would no more assign them than it assigns student
teachers or DCE interns. Several respondents to the TF’s preliminary report expressed concern that the District Presidents would no
longer be consulted in the assignment of vicars. The TF has amended its proposed Bylaw to require such consultation.

5. Appointment of director of news and information services: the TF withdraws the recommendation found in its preliminary report. The

only change it now suggests is wording to make it clear that the Board for Communication Services prepares the list of candidates that
is approved by the COP before the board makes its appointment.

tv

2001 Convention Workbook