LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 339

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 339

of office” (Bylaw 6.43 c 4) in that particular regard will be the issue
to be resolved, which is to include his efforts to supervise the pub-
lic teaching of his institution’s faculty members as described by
Bylaw 6.12 f and Bylaw 6.23 c.

The answer to this question, however, remains “no.” It will be
necessary to first establish that the faculty member has been guilty
of advocacy of false doctrine or failure to honor and uphold the
doctrinal position of the Synod, without which there is no basis for
determining whether the president has been negligent in his super-
visory duties.

Adopted Oct. 26, 2000

Question regarding Electoral Circuit
Exceptions (00-2210)

A District President in a letter dated August 23, 2000, refers to
Bylaw 3.03, which defines the constitution of electoral Circuits of
the Synod, and underscores the final sentence of the Bylaw: “Ex-
ceptions to these requirements and limitations can be made only by
the President of the Synod upon request of a District Board of Di-
rectors.” He raises the following question regarding the nature of
those exceptions:

Question: When a District Board of Directors has requested the
granting of such exceptions and when the President. of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has granted such exceptions,
are such exceptions perpetual or is there a time limitation to them?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.03 (and corresponding Bylaw 5.03) offer no
suggestion that exceptions granted by the President of the Synod
extend beyond their immediate purpose and use. To the contrary,
the every-three-years nature of the entire “Chapter III, Section A
Conventions” section of the Bylaws indicates that this is a process
to be undertaken in its entirety in preparation for each convention
of the Synod. In addition, membership statistics regularly change,
requiring regular reconsideration of the requirements of the Bylaws
to assure proper representation. Finally, voting delegates also serve
three-year terms of office, beginning with each convention (Bylaw
3.07). Exceptions granted, therefore, are not perpetual but are lim-
ited to three years.

Adopted Oct. 26, 2000

Question regarding the Propriety of a District
Convention Resolution (00-2211)

The chairman of a Board of Regents of a synodical university in
a letter dated August 28, 2000, requests the opinion of the Com-
mission regarding an action taken by a District of the Synod to
memorialize the convention of the Synod, specifically, to direct the
President of the Synod to formally investigate the doctrine and
practice of the university. The chairman, on behalf of the Board of
Regents, makes the following request, suggesting that the Com-
mission declare the resolution null and void and direct the Presi-
dent of the District that is memorializing the Synod to so inform
the constituency of the District:

Question: On behalf of the board, I respectfully request a rul-
ing on the propriety of a District resolution in apparent conflict
with the Bylaws of the Synod.

Opinion: Bylaw 3.19 a 2 allows that a convention of a District
may submit overtures to a convention of the Synod. The Commis-
sion is neither able nor responsible to discern the relevance or ad-
visability or truth of the content of any overture submitted to a con-
vention. This is the concern of the Floor Committee that is given
the responsibility for responding to the overture and for recom-
mending one of several convention actions in response.

The Commission calls attention to Bylaw 3.19 c which pre-
scribes those kinds of overtures that shall not be accepted for con-
vention consideration, namely, “overtures with reference to a case
in which a member has been suspended or expelled and which is at
present in the process of or subject to appeal, as well as overtures
which, upon advice of legal counsel, may subject the Synod or the
corporate officers of the Synod to civil action for libel or slander.”
The overture in question does not fall into any of these categories.

Adopted Oct. 26, 2000

Question re Propriety of Action
Taken by a District (00-2212)

An official of the Synod, in a September 21, 2000, letter to the
Commission, calls attention to an action taken by a District con-
vention which contains an “expression of dissent” to the current
synodical position regarding Communion practice. He requests a
ruling on the following question:

Question: Since a District of the Synod is in reality “the Synod
in that place,” may a District take official action to file an expres-
sion of dissent to a doctrine or practice of the Synod? Members of
the Synod have the privilege of doing so, but a District is not a
member of the Synod.

Opinion: Bylaw 2.39 c describes the procedure for dissent to
doctrinal resolutions of the Synod by members of the Synod. Dis-
tricts are not members of the Synod but are divisions of the Synod,
“the geographical boundaries of which are determined by the
Synod and are altered by it according to circumstances” (Art. XII
1). “The Synod establishes Districts in order more effectively to
achieve its objections and carry on its activities” (Bylaw 4.01). As
such, Districts “as component parts of the Synod are obligated to
carry out the resolutions of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.05 f). An official
action by a District, therefore, to file an expression of dissent to the
Synod regarding a doctrine taught and practiced by the Synod is
out of order and, therefore, null and void.

Adopted Oct. 26, 2000

Question re Resignations of Board
and Commission Members (00-2213)

In a memorandum dated September 26, 2000, the Executive Di-
rector of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
(CTCR) forwarded an action of that Commission at its September
21-23 meeting, as follows:

Resolved, Thal the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
respectfully follow the informal opinions of the CCM dated 9/12 and
9/15/2000 regarding the resignation of George Dolak from the CTCR as
those opinions apply to the September meeting of the CTCR; and that
further, because of respectful dissent, thal he CTCR, in the best interest
of the Synod for future situations, request a formal opinion of the CCM
regarding Bylaw 3.59 as it applies to incumbenls serving until the suc-
cessor assumes Office.

The CTCR is questioning an intormal opinion provided by the
chairman and secretary of the Commission on Constitutional Mat-
ters, which interprets the final sentence of Bylaw 3.59 as not ap-
plying to situations where a resignation has occurred but only to
“the normal changes that take place after regular elections” (letter
to the Director of the CTCR from the Secretary of the CCM). The
question before the Commission on Constitutional Matters is there-
fore:

Question: The CTCR, in the best interest of the Synod for fu-
ture situations, request[s] a formal opinion of the CCM regarding
Bylaw 3.59 as it applies to incumbents serving until the successor
assumes office.

Opinion: Bylaw 3.59 b, which speaks of members of elected
boards assuming office following their elections at conventions,
adds in its final sentence, “Incumbents shall serve until their suc-
cessors assume office.” Persons leaving office in this case continue
to be suited to serve except that their terms of office have ended,
potentially a very different situation from that of a resignation from
office which can be the result of many different causes.

The Commission supports the informal decision provided by its
officers that the final sentence of Bylaw 3.59 b refers only to the
normal changes that take place after regular elections and not to
changes as a result of resignations. In the case of the latter, a resig-
nation is to be considered as final, at which time the position that
has been vacated remains vacant until it has again been properly
filled.

Adopted Oct. 26, 2000

2001 Convention Workbook