LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 363

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 363

Discontinuance of Church Work Program (03-2335)

In a memorandum dated February 21, 2003, the President of the
Concordia University System submitted the following question re-
garding the discontinuance of the BA Deaconess program at Con-
cordia University, River Forest by the Board for Higher Educa-
tion/Concordia University System Board at the request of the
university’s Board of Regents.

Question: May the BHE/CUS Board discontinue a church work
program, (in this case the BA Deaconess program at River Forest)
which was established by synodical resolution, without submitting
its intent to a synodical convention?

Opinion: Individual education programs may be established by
colleges and universities of the Concordia University System in
various ways, including action by the Synod in convention under
Chapter III of the Bylaws as a result of the recommendations of the
Board for Higher Education pursuant to Bylaw 3.409 (particularly
paragraph b) or upon initiation by the Board of Regents of a par-
ticular institution in coordination with the Board for Higher Edu-
cation, as outlined in Bylaw 6.03 d. Unless restricted by an action
of the Synod in convention, the decision-making responsibility for
the nature and extent of ongoing programs, including the discon-
tinuance of a particular program, falls to the authority both of the
individual institution’s Board of Regents under Bylaw 6.03 (in co-
ordination with the Board for Higher Education) and with the
Board for Higher Education on its own initiative under Bylaw
3.409 (particularly paragraphs c and k).

Resolution 6-05 of the 1979 convention authorized the Board
for Higher Education to direct Concordia College, River Forest,
Illinois to establish a full deaconess training program on its campus
by the fall of 1980. The convention recognized (in the resolution’s
third whereas) that it was possible to add the deaconess program
without adding curriculum or academic staff. It is within the ongo-
ing responsibilities of the Board of Higher Education as well as the
local Board of Regents to continue to monitor the viability and ap-
propriateness of the deaconess program at Concordia University,
River Forest, as with any academic program.

Bylaw 3.409 | restricts the authority of the Board for Higher Edu-
cation with respect to the expansion, consolidation, relocation, change
to a junior college level, or separation of a college or university from
the Synod to circumstances in which the Board for Higher Education
has obtained prior consent by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board
of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod together with
a two-thirds majority vote of either the Council of Presidents or the
appropriate Board of Regents. That limitation, however, does not
apply to termination of individual programs.

The same subparagraph of Bylaw 3.409 imposes further re-
strictions with respect to the closure of a college, university, or
seminary. Such closure requires a two-thirds majority approval of
the Synod in convention. Here again, however, no such restriction
is placed upon the termination of an individual program.

While the Commission therefore finds no prohibition of the dis-
continuance of the BA Deaconess program at Concordia Univer-
sity, River Forest by the Board for Higher Education, for the rea-
sons set forth above, it should also be noted that Bylaw 3.409
imposes on the Board the overall responsibility to provide for the

education of ordained and commissioned ministers and other pro-'

fessional church workers for the Synod. The Synod has expressly
indicated its desire to have a deaconess training program and has
expressly identified throughout its Bylaws and many past synodical
convention resolutions the importance of deaconesses to the Synod.
At present, Concordia University, River Forest has the Synod’s
only BA Deaconess program. Pursuant to Bylaw 3.409 a, b and k,
the Board for Higher Education has the responsibility not only to
establish criteria for determining the ongoing viability of institu-
tions, but also the responsibility to develop detailed coordinating
policies and procedures for the colleges and universities of the
Synod that include plans to provide for meeting the constituency
needs and interests of the Synod. This responsibility certainly in-
cludes a plan for providing for the education and training of dea-
conesses, as repeatedly expressed in the resolutions of the Synod.

Adopted April 29, 2003

Appointments to Commission on Constitutional
_ Matters (03-2337)

A member of the Synod, in a February 19, 2003 letter, called
into question the legitimacy of an appointment of a member of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters in the event that all bylaw
appointment provisions are not followed.

Question _1: If a person is appointed to the Commission on Con-
stitutional Matters (CCM) in violation of Synod’s Bylaws, namely
Bylaw 3.903 a 3, “in consultation with the Vice-Presidents of the
Synod” (p. 71, 2001 Handbook), is that person actually and prop-
erly to be considered a member of the CCM?

Answer: The members of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters are selected pursuant to the procedures outlined in Bylaw
3.903. In paragraph a 3 of that bylaw, the President of the Synod, in
consultation with the Vice-Presidents of the Synod, appoints the
members of the Commission from a list presented by the Council
of Presidents, which list is narrowed to five candidates for each va-
cant position from a pool of nominees submitted by the District
boards of directors. However, it is helpful to understand that the
Bylaws do not describe the manner or method of “consultation.”
The Commission also notes that “consultation,” which simply
means to seek opinion or advice, is not the same as “mutual con-
currence” (also a bylaw phrase used elsewhere), which means to
be united or in agreement as in action or opinion. Any alleged vio-
lation of the process for selection of a member of the CCM should
be brought to the attention of the President of the Synod, the Vice-
Presidents of the Synod, the Council of Presidents, and the CCM it-
self for appropriate review and response.

Question 2: If the answer to question number one is “no,” are
subsequent decisions of the CCM, in which he participated, valid?

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod are silent
on this question, and since the Commission renders its decisions
on the basis of consensus, one such person does not invalidate the
opinion of the Commission.

Question 3: If the answer to question one is “yes,” is it neces-
sary for other members of the Synod to any longer abide by the by-
laws?

Opinion: Members of the Synod commit themselves “to act in
accordance with the synodical Constitution and Bylaws under
which they have agreed to live and work together and which the
congregations alone have the authority to adopt or to amend
through conventions” (Bylaw 1.05 d). Bylaw 2.39 a also states,
“The Constitution, Bylaws, and all other rules and regulations of
the Synod apply to all congregational and individual members of
the Synod.”

Adopted April 29, 2003

Reconsideration of Opinions re Ecclesiastical
Supervision (03-2338, 03-2338A, 03-2338C)

In a letter received February 27, 2003, a pastor of the Synod en-
couraged the Commission to reconsider its decision regarding “Ec-
clesiastical Supervision.” The stated reason for encouraging the re-
consideration was that for him the decision leaves the impression
that no one can be held responsible for his actions when he has re-
ceived prior permission from his ecclesiastical supervisor, that
everyone must give an account of his actions before the throne of
God and that no one can claim as an excuse that an ecclesiastical
supervisor condoned his action. He further asked these questions:
“Should not the Scriptures supersede any interpretation of the By-
laws? Is a decision of the CCM valid when it contradicts the Word
of God? Can the church allow them (ecclesiastical supervisors) to
be considered above accountability? Can those who follow ap-
proval by their ecclesiastical supervisor claim this same immunity
from challenge to their action?”

Secondly, in a letter received March 1, 2003, a pastor of the
Synod encouraged the Commission to reconsider its January
20-21, 2003 decisions regarding “‘Consequences of Actions Taken
Upon Approval of Ecclesiastical Supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320)
and all others in any way pertaining to ecclesiastical supervisors.

2004 Convention Workbook