LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 340

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

340 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Question re Use of Term “Bishop” for District
Presidents (00-2215)

The secretary of a District professional workers conference for-
warded the following resolution to the Commission, requesting a
response:

Resolved: The Midwest Regional Professional Workers Conference
(English District), meeting at the University of Saint Mary of the Lake,
Mundelein, Illinois, September 19-21, 2000, requests the Commission
on Constitutional Matters and the Secretary of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod to provide Handbook clarification for the use of the
term “Bishop” in describing the role of our elected District President.
Since there is no language in the current Bylaws to prohibil its use, we
kindly request your altention to this matter. Please direct your re-
sponse(s) to the Reverend David Ritt, President/Bishop, for dissemina-
tion to the professional workers of the English District.

The Commission understands the question submitted by the
Midwest Regional Professional Workers Conference to essentially
read as follows:

Question: Does the Handbook of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod provide clarification for the use of the term “Bishop”
in describing the role of our elected District President?

Opinion: The Handbook of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod does not make use of the term “Bishop.” The terminology
which the Synod has chosen to use in referring to the chief execu-
tive officer of the District is “District President’ (Constitution, Art.
XII; Bylaw 4.51).

The Commission again notes that Ov. 3-42 to the 1981 synodi-
cal convention asked for permission to use the term “Bishop” as an
alternate title for the President of the Synod, the District Presidents,
and the Vice Presidents of both the Synod and the Districts. In re-
sponse, Res. 3-19 of the convention, “To Retain the Terminology
of ‘President’ and Vice-President,’” respectfully declined Ov. 3-
42.

In light of the above, the Commission’s answer is that the
Handbook does not use the term “Bishop” but consistently uses the
term “District President.”

Adopted Oct. 26, 2000
Question re the Right to Extend Calls (00-2193)

The Commission continued its discussion of the series of ques-
tions submitted by the Department of School Ministry of the Synod
and a District President, also incorporating into the discussion,
upon request of the Council of Presidents, a review of the Coun-
cil’s working draft of “Rubrics Governing Call and Placement Pro-
cedures for Ministers of Religion—Commissioned” (00-2217). The
Commission responded as follows.

Question 1: What is an eligible calling entity? It is generally
agreed that a congregation of the LCMS is an eligible calling en-
tity. Who else is eligible to issue a call? Are there any entities that
would not be eligible to issue a call?

Opinion: The Bylaws of the Synod do not directly define an el-
igible calling entity. Bylaw 2.11 makes reference to “authorized
calling bodies” and refers to Bylaw 2.15. Bylaw 2.15 sets forth the
duties that an ordained or commissioned minister of religion must
be performing in order to be an “active member” of the Synod.
Therefore, it follows that the appropriate calling entities of the
Synod are those entities that extend calls to ordained or commis-
sioned ministers of religion who perform the duties set forth in
Bylaw 2.15, namely:

1. A congregation of the Synod

2. A congregation which is not a member of the Synod if the call
is approved by the President of the District where the congre-
gation is located and such approval is granted on the basis of
policies adopted by the Council of Presidents

3. The Synod itself for a position as an elected officer, executive,
professional staff member, missionary, military chaplain, insti-
tutional chaplain, or a specialized ministry

4. An agency of the Synod (defined in Bylaw 3.51 a, including a
District) for a position as an elected officer, executive, or pro-

2001 Convention Workbook

fessional staff member

5. A District for a position as a missionary, military chaplain, in-
stitutional chaplain or specialized ministry

6. A synedical educational institution for a position as a faculty
member or professional staff member

7. A national inter-Lutheran agency referred to in Bylaw 13.01 for
a position as an executive or professional staff member

8. An auxiliary referred to in Bylaw 14.01 for a position as an ex-
ecutive or professiona! staff member

9. A recognized service organization referred to in Bylaw 14.03
for a position as an executive or professional staff member

10. An elementary or secondary educational institution recognized
by the Synod for a position as an executive or professional staff
member

The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.15 also refers to ministries
that are “endorsed” by the Synod or Districts. These endorsements
are not calls, and entities which employ those endorsed church
workers are not eligible calling bodies.

Question 2: Can a congregation delegate the calling responsi-
bility to the board of directors of an association school of which it
is a member?

Opinion: As stated in the opinion to question | above, a con-
gregation is an eligible calling entity, as is an elementary or sec-
ondary educational institution recognized by the Synod. Neither the
Constitution nor the Bylaws of the Synod address whether a con-
gregation can delegate its calling authority to another entity. This is
a theological issue that should be addressed to the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations (CTCR).

Question 3: Can a recognized service organization (RSO) that
operates a Lutheran school issue a “‘call” to a rostered worker?

Opinion: Yes.
Question 4: Must a school association have RSO status in order
to be eligible to issue a call?

Opinion: No. As stated in the opinion to question | above, an el-
ementary or secondary educational institution recognized by the
Synod is also an appropriate calling entity. The Bylaws do not de-
fine the phrase “recognized by the Synod.”

Question 5: Can a separately incorporated school association
that is not an RSO issue a “call”? Does it make any difference if
the association is made up of all LCMS congregations? What if
over 50 percent of the congregations in the association are not part
of the LCMS?

Opinion: This question is answered in the opinions to the four
previous questions.

Question 6: A teacher who is on the roster of the Synod is given
a contract by the calling entity, rather than a “call.” Does the Synod
recognize that this rostered worker has a “call” even though the
calling entity says it is a contract?

Opinion: Res. 6-14 of the 1981 convention of the Synod in-
cludes the following: “Offers extended to eligible persons but er-
roneously referred to as ‘appointments’ or ‘contracts’ are also to
be considered calls.”

Question 7: Can a rostered teacher retain rostered status if serv-
ing in a separately incorporated association Lutheran school that
does not have RSO status?

Opinion: Yes, if the rostered teacher is serving an elementary
or secondary educational institution recognized by the Synod.

Question 8: If a separately incorporated Lutheran school
chooses not to be an RSO, can a District or the school ministry de-
partment (of the Board for Congregational Services) consider them
one of our schools? Can they be included in the Synod’s group tax
exemption? Are they eligible for the same services that a District or
the Synod through the school ministry department provides to its
Lutheran schools?

Opinion: The Commission declines to respond to the tax ex-
emption issue since this is beyond its authority under Bylaw 3.905.
Bylaw 3.823 sets forth the functions of the Board for Congrega-
tional Services (BCS). It provides that the BCS shall organize it-