LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 365

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS | 365

of all officers of the Synod and its agencies, the individual Districts of
the Synod, and all District Presidents.” Who then has ecclesiastical
supervision of the President of the Synod? Neither the Constitution
nor the Bylaws provide a specific answer to that question. However,
in 1992 the Commission issued an opinion (Ag. 1915), which has not
been overruled by any subsequent convention of the Synod. That
opinion provided in part as follows: The Synod has a right to call its
officers to account and to remove them from office in accordance
with Christian procedure (Article XI 2). The Commission then com-
mented, “It would seem that the only recourse is an appeal to the con-
vention of the Synod....”

Adopted Dec. 13, 2003

Concerns re Opinion 02-2309 (03-2338B)

In a March 3, 2003 letter, a pastor of the Synod expressed con-
cern regarding an opinion of the CCM which he believes “has an
unnecessarily pejorative spin to it” when it states that “implemen-
tation of the dispute resolution process should never be intended or
allowed to disrupt, hamper, or harass the President as he carries out
the duties and responsibilities of his office, including those of ec-
clesiastical supervision” (02-2309 response to question #3). He
asked the Commission to “show specific proof from Scripture, the
Confessions, and the Constitution and Bylaws” that the opinion is
Justified, or, if that cannot be done, to modify the opinion.

Opinion: The Commission notes that in its response to question
#3 of Opinion 02-2309 it repeated the words of the question to
which it was responding when it used the words “disrupt, hamper,
or harass.” It was not the intent of the Commission to disparage the
questioner or to discourage proper use of the dispute resolution
process. In fact, in the same response to question #3 the Commis-
sion acknowledges that there may be occasions when the use of
Chapter VII of the Bylaws is appropriate.

The Commission has never opined that one brother should be
denied the right or responsibility to admonish another brother over
matters of the soul. However, when it comes to ecclesiastical su-
pervision by the Synod, such supervision is to be provided by those
whom the Synod has given that responsibility i in its Constitution
and Bylaws.

Adopted Aug. 15-16, 2003

Board of Directors Appointment Responsibilities
(03-2340)

In an e-mailed letter received February 28, 2003, an emeritus pas-
tor of the Synod reminded the Commission of Bylaw 3.75 and ques-
tioned the right of the Board of Directors of the Synod to appoint its
own members to the boards of Synodwide corporate entities.

Question: Is it in harmony with the Bylaws of the Synod for the
Board of Directors to appoint any of its own members to the boards
of these corporate entities (Concordia Historical Institute; Concor-
dia Publishing House; Concordia University System; The Lutheran
Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod; and The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod Foundation)?

Opinion: The answer to the question as stated is no. It is recog-
nized that Bylaw 3.75 a states, “No one, either in the Synod or ina
District, or between the Synod and a District, shall hold more than
one elective office; or more than two offices, although one or both
be appointive; or ever hold two offices of which one is directly re-
sponsible for the work done by the other.” It would be improper
for an elected member of the Board of Directors to also be a mem-
ber of the governing board of a Synodwide corporate entity because
of the oversight responsibility of the Synod’s Board of Directors
(Art. XI F 2; Bylaw 3.183). The Constitution and Bylaws of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod do not authorize the Synod’s
Board of Directors to appoint members to the governing boards of
any of the Synodwide corporate entities.

The Commission calls attention to the fact that in three of the
corporate entities of the Synod the membership of the entity dif-
fers from the governing board of the entity. There is membership of
the Concordia University System (Bylaw 3.405) and membership
of its board (Bylaw 3.407). The Bylaws of the Synod also make a

distinction between Members of the Lutheran Church Extension
Fund—Missouri Synod (Bylaw 3.501 a) and the Board of Direc-
tors of the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missouri Synod
(Bylaw 3.501 c). Members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod Foundation (Bylaw 3.603 a) are also to be distinguished
from the Board of Trustees of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod Foundation. Being a “Member” of these entities is not the
same as being a member of the governing board of the entities.
The Commission makes note of the following: The Synod’s
Board of Directors makes no regular appointments to the following
corporate entities: Concordia Historical Institute (Bylaw 3.203) and
Concordia Publishing House (Bylaw 3.301). The Board of Direc-
tors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod appoints one group
of Members to the corporate entity of Concordia University Sys-
tem, but the Synod’s Board of Directors appoints no person to the
Board of Directors of Concordia University System (Bylaws 3.405
and 3.407). The Synod’s Board of Directors appoints Members to
the corporate entity of the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Mis-
souri Synod but no person to its Board of Directors (Bylaw 3.501 a,
c). The Synod’s Board of Directors appoints one group of Mem-
bers to the entity of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Foun-
dation but does not appoint persons to the Board of Trustees of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Foundation (Bylaw 3.603).

Bylaw 3.63 a addresses the filling of vacancies on synodically
elected boards, which would include those members of the govern-
ing boards of the Synodwide corporate entities who are elected by
the Synod in convention. This bylaw provides that the Synod’s
Board of Directors selects the individual to fill such vacancy. How-
ever, the slate of candidates from which the Board of Directors se-
lects the individual is prepared by parties other than the Board of
Directors of the Synod.

Adopted June 23, 2003

Board of Directors Appointments
to Other Entities of the Synod (03-2342)

In an e-mailed letter received February 28, 2003, a parish pastor
of the Synod questioned the right of the Board of Directors to ap-
point its own members to certain positions in the Synod and in-
quires regarding the status of any inappropriate appointments that
may have been made.

Question 1: Were the self- appointments that the synodical Board
of Directors made for themselves to the Concordia University Sys-
tem and Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missoun Synod (and oth-
ers) appropriate, especially seeing how the Concordia University Sys-
tem Board and the Lutheran Church Extension Fund—Missouri
Synod report directly/indirectly to the Board of Directors of the
Synod?

Opinion: Any appointment, including “self-appointments,” made
by the Synod’s Board of Directors that complies with the Bylaws is
appropriate. Any appointment is inappropmiate if it reflects non-com-
pliance. Opinion 03-2340 serves as an answer to this question.

Question 2: Should all preceding appointments and subsequent
appointments and elections held thereafter and even decisions ren-
dered from such respective entities as a result of their various ap-
pointments be considered null and void?

Opinion: Any appointment or election may be declared null and
void if the appointment or election was not in compliance with the
Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws. The Constitution and Bylaws are
silent concerning the validity of a decision in such case.

Question 3: If the Board of Directors of the Synod acted im-
properly in appointing its own members, does the President of the
Synod have the authority to nullify the action of the Board of Di-
rectors of the Synod in appointing its own members to the Synod-
wide corporate entities?

Opinion: The President of the Synod has the constitutional duty
to see to it that all officers of the Synod “act in accordance with
the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish all who in any way depart
from it, and, if such admonition is not heeded, to report such cases
to the Synod” (Art. XI B 2). And according to Article XI B 3, “The

2004 Convention Workbook