LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 342

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

342 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Question 3: “Reinstatement is a matter of ecclesiastical supervi-
sion. The only people in the Council of Presidents who have ecclesi-
astical supervision are the elected District Presidents and the Presi-
dent of Synod (see Art. XI B; Art. XII 7-9). Synod vice-presidents
do not normally have ecclesiastical supervision of doctrine and prac-
tice (see Art. XI. C). When Bylaw 2.33 says that reinstatement is done
through a 75% or more majority of the District Presidents present and
voting, it specifically speaks to those who have ecclesiastical super-
vision (both by experience and by role) according to the Constitution.
Does Bylaw 2.33 limit reinstatement only to those who have ecclesi-
astical supervision, namely District Presidents and the President of
the Synod? In other words, does Bylaw 2.33, in accordance with Art.
XI B and Art. XII 7-9, stipulate that the way in which the Council of
Presidents has determined to reinstate individuals is by means of a
vote of District Presidents?”

Opinion: In its opinion 00-2198 the Commission has already es-
sentially answered this question, as follows:

The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.31 establishes that “the decision
to accept or deny a request for reinstatement shall be at the sole discretion
of the Council of Presidents.” Bylaw 2.33 adds that “procedures for in-
vestigating and processing requests for reinstatement ...shall be the re-
sponsibility of the Council of Presidents.” Such reference to the Council as
a whole is consistent with all other bylaws relating Council roster respon-
sibilities. In no case is a vote or other action of District Presidents distin-
guished from the vote and action of the Praesidium, including, for exam-
ple, the vote to extend candidate status (Bylaw 2.19, a).

The Commission therefore rules that when Bylaw 2.33 stipulates
that “a decision to reinstate shall require an affirmative vote of at least
75 percent of the District Presidents present and voting,” the bylaw in-
tends to include the President and Vice-Presidents of the Synod in the
voting. The Commission concludes that the drafters of the bylaw, in the
interest of carefully delineating the percentage vote needed, referred in
particular to District Presidents but had no intention of excluding the
Praesidium from the vote. To decide otherwise would labor against
other statements in these same bylaws which clearly place decisions re-
garding reinstatement into the hands of the Council of Presidents.
Question 4: “When Bylaw 2.31 says that the Council of Presi-

dents has the sole discretion in reinstating an individual member of
the Synod, while Bylaw 2.33 says the reinstatement is done through
a 75% or more majority of the District Presidents present and vot-
ing, may the Council of Presidents excuse the Synod Praesidium
or a portion of the Praesidium (e.g., Synod Vice-Presidents) from
participating in a particular vote to reinstate?”

Opinion: See answer to question 3 above. The Council of Pres-
idents is required to abide by the Bylaws of the Synod, including
the opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, which
“shall be binding on the question decided unless and until it is over-
ruled by a synodical convention” (Bylaw 3.905 d). Therefore,
Bylaw 2.31 may not be understood to allow the Council of Presi-
dents to excuse the Praesidium or a portion of it from participating
in a particular vote to reinstate.

The Commission recognizes the inconsistency of terminology
used in Bylaw 2.31 and therefore will refer this matter to the Com-
mission on Structure for its attention.

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Constitutional Power of President When Recused
(02-2285; 02-2285A; 02-2285B; 02-2285C; 02-2301)

In letters dated July 15, July 24, July 25, August 8, and August
27, 2002, a number of pastors of the Synod raised a follow-up
question to the Commission’s previous opinion 02-2282 regarding
the right of a president of the Synod who has been recused from a
particular dispute case to invoke his general constitutional power
to call into question a decision in the case, as follows:

Question: May a synodical President who has been recused
from presiding over a disciplinary case submitted to the Praesid-
ium under Bylaw 2.27 invoke his general constitutional power “to
advise, admonish, and reprove” (Article XI B 3) and his specific
power given under Bylaw 3.101 B 5 to “call up for review any ac-
tion by an individual officer” in order to call into question the rul-
ing made by the member of the Praesidium who was given power
to investigate and rule on the case?

2004 Convention Workbook

Opinion: While a synodical president may be disqualified from
participation in Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws for rea-
sons given in Bylaw 2.27 a 1, he may, due to his constitutional re-
sponsibilities and powers provided under Article XI and in light of
this Commission’s opinion 02-2282, call up for review a decision
made by the next qualified officer who is carrying out the respon-
sibilities of Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII. The Commission has re-
sponded in further detail to this question in its opinion 02-2297.

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Former Opinion re Lutheran Book of Worship (02-2286)

An emeritus member of the Synod, in a June 30, 2002 letter, re-
quested that the Commission update its 1983 ruling regarding the
Lutheran Book of Worship in light of related convention actions.
After citing several references from convention actions, he ex-
plained: “This evidence is supplied to the CCM to help them find
the official decision on the part of the convention of the Synod that
the Lutheran Book of Worship is doctrinally impure.”

Opinion: In its April 29, 1983 opinion Ag. 1645-1640, the
Commission stated:

If in fact the Lutheran Book of Worship is not “doctrinally pure,” then
under Article VI of our Synod’s Constitution it should not be used by our
congregations. However, we can find no evidence of an official decision
on the part of the convention of the Synod itself that the Lutheran Book of
Worship is doctrinally impure.

Bylaw 3.905 d states that an opinion rendered by the Commis-
sion on Constitutional Matters shall be binding on the question de-
cided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical convention.
The material furnished to the Commission to support the present
request was available to the Commission when it rendered its 1983
opinion. Since many synodical conventions have been held since
1983 and none of these have overruled the 1983 opinion, the Com-
mission declines to revisit the question.

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Eligibility of Women for Offices of
President/Vice-President in Congregations (02-2288)

A pastor of the Synod, in an e-mail letter dated July 23, 2002,
explained that his congregation was in the process of updating its
constitution. Upon submission of the updated constitution to the
District for approval, the congregation was informed that it should
add a provision excluding women from the positions of congrega-
tional president (chairman) or vice-president (vice-chairman) as per
article 12.0 of the Commission’s “GUIDELINES for the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation.” The pastor explains
that his congregation agrees with the doctrinal position that women
should not be involved in the specific functions of the pastoral of-
fice nor hold positions in the church that violate the order of cre-
ation. He notes, however, that these offices in question can be
viewed as strictly functionary and administrative in nature and asks
the following question.

Question 1: “Why would it be considered a violation of the
order of creation or an improper involvement in the specific func-
tions of the pastoral office for a woman to hold these posts?”

Opinion: For information regarding why it would be considered
a violation of the order of creation or an improper involvement in
the specific functions of the pastoral office for a woman to hold
one or other of these posts, the petitioner is advised to request ex-
planation from the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church
Relations.

Question 2: “What is the rationale for the position advocated by
the Commission on Constitutional Matters in its ‘Guidelines for the
Constitution and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation’?”

Qpinion: Resolution 3-06A of the 1995 convention of the
Synod resolved, “That the members of the Synod continue to up-
hold its position on women serving in congregational offices and to
abide by the position as stated in the 1970 opinion of the Commis-
sion on Constitutional Matters (CCM) that congregations may
allow women to hold all congregational offices except those of
chairman, vice-chairman, elder, and any other board or policy-mak-