LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 341

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

self to enable vision and outcome development, to prepare and re-
vise policies responsive to both current and anticipated situations,
and to initiate action in order to meet the changing needs of Dis-
tricts and congregations. Service areas are to be evaluated and
changed as appropriate. It is to focus its energies on helping Dis-
tricts help congregations in building up disciples for service in the
church and to all people in today’s world. In partnership with Dis-
tricts, the BCS is to support and serve congregations of the Synod
in their varied range of diverse and unique ministries with assis-
tance in arranging and carrying out a comprehensive and effective
program of Christian education, especially counseling that the most
effective education agencies available to the church for equipping
children and youth for ministry are the full-time Lutheran elemen-
tary and secondary schools. Thus, this charge to the BCS leads the
Commission to conclude that a separately incorporated Lutheran
school that is not an RSO must be recognized by the Synod in order
to receive services from the BCS.

Question 9: If a separately incorporated Lutheran school asso-
ciation has 100 percent LCMS members, only LCMS congrega-
tions or individuals are the member owners, are they required to
obtain RSO status from the LCMS?

Opinion: This question is addressed in the responses to the pre-
vious questions.

Question 10: What privileges does a separately incorporated
Lutheran school association lose if it chooses not to be an RSO of
the LCMS?

Opinion: See the opinion to question 8 above.

The Commission notes that the above opinions also provide re-
sponse to the questions submitted by the District President, specif-
ically, Does a recognized service organization have the right or
privilege to extend a divine call to a rostered worker of the Synod,
or must a District President endorse such a worker’s position in
order to make it possible for him/her to retain “‘active” status in the
Synod? (See opinion 3.)

Adopted Dec. 1 1-12, 2000

Review of Council of Presidents Call Rubrics
Document (00-2217)

The Clergy Call and Roster Committee of the Council of Pres-
idents requested a review of the Council’s working document
“Rubrics Governing Call and Placement Procedures for Ministers
of Religion—Commissioned.” The Committee also forwarded a se-
ries of questions that surfaced during the Council’s discussion of
the document at its November 2000 meeting.

After reading through the document, the Commission made the
following observations:

1. The equating of a “call” and an “appointment” or “contract”
(page |, lines 36-40; page 3, lines 15-18; and page 4, lines 5-8)
blurs distinctions and raises concerns. Res. 6-14 of the 1981 con-
vention of the Synod does include this statement: “Offers ex-
tended to eligible persons but erroneously referred to as ‘ap-
pointments’ or ‘contracts’ are also to be considered calls.” At the
same time, the 1981 report of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations entitled The Ministry: Offices, Procedures, and
Nomenclature states, “The term ‘call’ should be used for those
who have specifically been equipped to perform certain ecclesi-
astical functions and have made a commitment to dedicate their
lives to that service. ... The term ‘call’ should not be used where
such commitment is lacking, and those who serve the church
other than under a call should be referred to simply as ‘lay work-
ers.’ ... Those who are ‘called’ must be under the supervision of
the whole church.”

The CTCR study that is currently underway regarding the “call”
should also be taken into consideration, as should the Commis-
sion on Constitutional Matters decision 00-2193 which identifies
authorized calling entities. Finally, legal counsel also should be
consulted due to potential Internal Revenue Service ramifications.

It should be added on page 2, line 34, that a District President is
the chief executive officer of a District according to Bylaw 4.71 a.
. The term “lay teachers” is defined differently in different places
in the document, e.g., page 3, lines 6-11, and page 6, lines 37-42.

N

a

341

In addition, the statement on line 6 of page 3 which speaks of
“teachers who have been certified by the church” should rather
read, “teachers who have been declared qualified by an autho-
rized synodical institution” (Bylaws 2.09 a; 7.21 1).

4. lt is recommended that lines 27-31 on page 4 not be included. It
is to be assumed that proper reasons and a spirit of Christian love
and concern will be present.

. “On occasion” in line | of page 7 is understated to the point of
being less than true. Lines 3-4 might also be strengthened to in-
clude a role for the congregation and even the church at large in
making participation in a co!loquy program possible.

wa

6. A significant question is raised by line 21 of page 9, specifically,
What authority does the District President have in the process?
Bylaw 2.11 ¢ provides for consultation with the President of the
District in which a candidate is to be placed, whereupon “his sug-
geslions and recommendations shall be part of the final recom-
mendation to the Board of Assignments.” Such review of a pro-
posed placement does not rise to the level of line 21 of this
document, “If the District President endorses {emphasis added]
the call,” nor does it provide him with veto power.

~

. The statement on line 30 of page 9, “Candidates will not receive
more than one Call at a time,” begs to be reconsidered in light of
our Synod’s understanding of the call and the right of congrega-
tions to call.

8. The question of greatest concern regarding the proposed docu-

ment is whether the process as outlined truly complies with the

assumption of Bylaw 2.!1 a that the Council of Presidents is to
act as the Board of Assignments (see also Bylaw 3.930 c) to as-
sign first calls to church workers. The process as proposed sug-
gests that the Council has almost entirely delegated this responsi-
bility to others, limiting its own involvement to lines 32-33 on
page 9. This appears to not comply with Bylaw 2.11 a and should
be addressed. If the process described in the proposed document
is to be preferred, Bylaw changes should be advocated to bring
the Bylaws of the Synod into line with the practice of the Synod.

The Commission also offers a brief response to the “Areas of
Concern Registered during Presentation to the COP”:

1. Page 3, lines 37-40: The COP requested a CCM opinion regard-
ing who has the authority to extend a call in the LCMS. There-
fore, the document has been submitted to the CCM for review.

The Commission refers to its opinion 00-2193 in response to ques-
tions raised by the COP and others regarding the nght to extend calls.

2. Page 4, lines 10-31: Are the items included in this section con-
sistent with Scripture, the Handbook of the Synod, and current
policies? Do they allow too much discretion on the part of calling
entities? It was feared by some that the call under such an under-
standing doesn’t offer much protection to a worker.

The question of whether this section is consistent with Scripture
should be addressed to the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions. Current policies, also beyond the purview of this Commission,
should always be consulted and should be reviewed to assure that they
reflect the authority and teachings of Scripture and a spirit of Christian
love and concern for the worker. The Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod, the purview of this Commission, do not specifically address the
question of the termination of a call by a congregation. The Commis-
sion notes, however, that Bylaw 6.44, which addresses the termination
of a faculty position of a synodical college or university, does offer
some guidance for determining conditions upon which a called position
may be terminated.

3. Page 6, lines 13-17: The COP requested a CCM opinion regard-
ing who has the authority to extend a call in the LCMS. There-
fore, the document has been submitted to the CCM for review.

As noted above, see CCM opinion 00-2193.

4, Page 9, lines 30-33: How is this being handled now, and how can
it be enforced?

The COP will want to direct this question to the Board for Higher

Education.

5. Bylaw references will be added to all pertinent sections of the

document.

The Commission agrees with this expectation.

Adopted Dec. 11-12, 2000

2001 Convention Workbook