LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 320

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

320 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

cies regarding personnel selection and grant prior approval for ini-
tial appointments of theological faculty” (paragraph h). The BHE is
therefore authorized to provide such guidelines as on academic
freedom “in keeping with the objectives and the Constitution, By-
laws, and resolutions of the Synod.”

The question notes that two types of persons may be contracted:
(1) laypersons who are members ot LCMS congregations and (2)
rostered members of the Synod. Of the two, Bylaw 6.23 ¢ states
that rostered candidates are to be preferred when faculty positions
are filled: “Ordinartly candidates for full-time teaching positions
shall be rostered members of the Synod.” Bylaw 6.23 ¢ also stipu-
lates that should laypersons be contracted. the same allegiance to
the teachings and practice of the Synod is required as of rostered
members of the Synod: “When laypersons are employed in full-
time teaching positions, they shall pledge to perform their duties in
harmony with the Holy Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, the
Lutheran Confessions, the Synod’s doctrinal statements, and the
polictes of the Synod.” In the case of both categories of persons,
doctrinal resolutions and statements “are to be honored and upheld
until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them” (Bylaw 1.09
b). If there is disagreement, “Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and
statements shall be governed by Bylaw 2.39 c” (Bylaw 1.09 d). In
the meanwhile, dissenters are to “continue to honor and uphold
publicly ... the position of the Synod. notwithstanding further study
and action by the Synod” (Bylaw 1.09 ¢ 10) or face removal from
office (Bylaw 6.43 ¢ 6).

If, therefore, a rostered member of the Synod or a layperson
who “is known to publicly hold a teaching that is contrary to the
doctrine and practice of the Synod” is considered for a faculty
teaching position, it will be necessary to learn if and to what ex-
tent this is true. [f it is found to be true and full compliance with the
stated positions of the Synod is not possible, such a person cannot
be offered a teaching position in a synodical school. If a person is
hired after pledging full compliance with the stated positions of the
Synod and fails to honor that commitment, onc of the causes for
which members of a faculty may be removed from office is “ad-
vocacy of false doctrine (Constitution, Art. 11) or failure to honor
and uphold the doctrinal position of the Synod as defined further in
Bylaw 1.09” (Bylaw 6.43 c 6). Bylaw 6.23 d also allows that “the
Board of Regents may decline to renew the appointment of a fac-
ulty member without tenure at its discretion and without formal
statement of cause.”

Adopted May 5, 1999

Amendments to LCEF Articles
of Incorporation and Bylaws (99-2143)

At its 1998 convention, The Lutheran Chureh—Missouri Synod
adopted a resolution amending Bylaw 3.503 (formerly Bylaw
3.493) and Bylaw 3.197 of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
(the “Synod”) to change the scope of the objectives of the Lutheran
Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod (“LCEF’”). At its mect-
ing in November 1998, LCEF’s membcrs adopted amendments to
Articles Fourth and Ninth of its Articles of Incorporation to reflect
the changes to Synod Bylaws 3.503 and 3.197.

Also, at its 1998 convention, the Synod adopted a resolution
amending Bylaw 3.161 and Bylaw 3.501 (formerly Bylaw 3.490)
of the Synod. At its meeting in November 1998, the members of
the LCEF adopted amendments to Art. II, Sections |, 2, 3, and 6,
and Art. VI of its Bylaws to reflect the changes to Synod Bylaws
3.161 and 3.501.

Synod Bylaw 3.197 requires that the Board of Directors of the
Synod and the Commission on Constitutional Matters review any
amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Syn-
odwide corporate entities for conformity to the Synod’s Bylaws.
The amendments adopted by LCEF’s members were approved by
the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
at its meeting on February 25, 1999. They now have been presented
to the Commission for its review and approval.

After a review of the amendments made, the Commission
adopted the following resolution:

2001 Convention Werkbook

Resolved, That the amendments to Articles Fourth and Ninth of the
Articles of Incorporation of The Lutheran Church Extension Fund—
Missouri Synod, adopted at the mecting of the members of that corpo-
ration held in November 1998, reflecting the changes to Synod Bylaws
3.503 and 3.197 adopted by the Synod at its 1998 convention, having
been reviewed by the Commission on Constitutional Matters, are in
conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod and are hereby approved; and be it further

Resolved, That the Amendments to Art. II, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6,
and Art. VI of the Bylaws of LCEF, adopted at the meeting of the mem-
bers of that corporation held in November 1998, reflecting the changcs
to Synod Bylaws 3.161 and 3.501 adopted by the Synod at its 1998 con-
vention, having been reviewed by the Commission on Constitutional
Matters, are in conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and are approved.

The Commission notes, however, that the last two sentences of
Section 3 of Art. I] of the Bylaws of LCEF state as follows:

Elected directors may be removed by a two-thirds (2/3) majority
vote of the Board of Directors of the LCEF at any time, with cause. A
vacancy on the Board of Directors shall be filled by election by the
members of the LCEF at any regular or special meeting.

The Commission rules that those directors elected by a conven-
tion of the Synod cannot be removed with or without cause by ac-
tion of the Board of Directors of LCEF. Should a vacancy occur
among those members of the Board of Directors elected by a con-
vention of the Synod, the provisions of synodical Bylaw 3.63 must
apply. Accordingly, the above quoted sentences of Section 3 of Art.
{1 must therefore be amended when the members of LCEF next
have opportunity tn the manner set forth in the governing instru-
ments of LCEF.

Adopted May 5, 1999

Questions regarding the Dispute
Resolution Process (99-2144)

A pastor and congregation involved in a dispute resolution case
have raised a series of questions pertaining to the Synod’s Dispute
Resolution Process. The Commission responds as follows:

1. Can District/synodical officials intervene, followed by the syn-
odical Reconciliation/ Dispute Resolution Process, cutting short
or interrupting a congregation’s own biblically, confessionally,
and synodically approved constitutional reconciliation proce-
dures?

Bylaw 8.05 requires that, prior to the formal reconciliation process
of the Synod, the parties must make a good-faith attempt at settling the
dispute themselves. Bylaw 8.07 c furthermore requires that the ap-
pointed reconciler, as a first order of business, determine whether such
informal reconciliation efforts have been adequate. It is therefore the
responsibility of the reconciler to determine whether informal, or as in
this case, congregational efforts have been adequate.

2. Can a Dispute Resolution Panel exclude a party's evidence from

a hearing on its own without listening to formal arguments to re-
tain such evidence from either party whose evidence is being ex-
cluded? Should the DRP provide for other avenues of due process
relative to evidence?

It is not the responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters to determine whether the Dispute Resolution Process should pro-
vide for other avenues of due process relative to evidence. Bylaw 3.905
stipulates that it is the business of the Commission only to interpret the
existing Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod.

Bylaw 8.21 g gives responsibility to a panel for determining the
number of witnesses necessary for a full and complete understanding
of the facts involved in the dispute. Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Dispute Resolution Process allows that “the parties may offer any
evidence that they consider to be fair, relevant, and pertinent to the dis-
pute.” The same rule, however, also provides final decision-making au-
thority to the panel, stipulating that “the reconcilers and panels shall be
the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered, and
conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.”

3. Can a called worker who resigns from his position have further
recourse against a congregation with regard to his worker/em-
ployment status when he knowingly agrees to a congregation's
constitution and bylaw procedures that resignation is the end of
the matter?