LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 369

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 369

1) ...the CCM acted contrary to the Synod’s Constitution when it
adopted a position on ecclesiastical supervision which is contrary
to the Scriptures and the Confessions.

2)...the CTCR acted contrary to the Synod’s Constitution when it
interpreted Resolution 3-07 to include praying together with non-
Christian religions as Dr. Benke did in A Prayer for America.

3)...the DRP was misguided by the CCM and CTCR rulings and
that in making its judgment as it did, it violated the constitutional
mandate that all judgments must be founded solely on the basis

of Scripture and the Confessions.

4)...Dr. Schulz is correct in his assessment of these points as he

clearly stated in his report.

5)...Dr. Kieschnick has thrown our Synod into great turmoil and

jeopardy regarding our Constitution, our confession, our missions,
and our financial situation—and that he must be held accountable
for this.

We believe that the ruling made by the Dispute Resolution Panel
must be overturned on the basis of the clear evidence provided by Dr.
Schulz from God’s Word and the Confessions of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church. The precedent which the Dispute Resolution Panel
has put into place sets the Synod on a new theological and confessional
course contrary to that which it has maintained in the past. We are,
therefore, compelled by truth to reject the DRP ruling.

Opinion: The Bylaws do not prohibit criticism or comment by
any party, member or non-member, regarding an opinion rendered
by the Commission on Constitutional Matters. Bylaw 3.73 provides
that “all officers, boards, and commissions shall be accountable to
the Synod for all their actions, and any decision of such officers,
boards, and commissions may be appealed to the national conven-
tion of the Synod.”

Question 3: The use of the term “ecclesiastical supervision” in
recent CCM rulings such as CCM ruling (02-2309) “Ecclesiastical
Supervision and Conflict of Interest” raises certain questions. Does
the term “ecclesiastical supervision” as used in the synodical Con-
stitution and Bylaws apply only to the synodical President and the
District Presidents, or does it apply to other positions and relation-
ships within the Synod as well? For example:

Question 3A: Are pastors to be understood by the Synod’s Con-
stitution and Bylaws as “ecclesiastical supervisors” of the congre-
gations to which they have been called?

Opinion: There is no reference to pastors as ecclesiastical su-
pervisors in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

Question 3B: Are Circuit Counselors “ecclesiastical supervi-
sors” over parish pastors?

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws only refer to the Presi-
dent of the Synod and the District Presidents as ecclesiastical su-
pervisors. Bylaw 5.13 a states that the Circuit Counselor “shall
serve under the direction of and be accountable to the District Pres-
ident and shall serve as his spokesman when so authorized and di-
rected and shall assist him in doctrinal and spiritual supervision.”
Further, Bylaw 5.13 c states that a Circuit Counselor “shall serve in
a servant role and seek to remind and encourage members of the
Circuit of their responsibilities as God’s people and the privilege
they have in being about His mission.”

Question 3C: Are the Vice-Presidents of the Synod to be un-
derstood in any sense of the term as “ecclesiastical supervisors”?

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws only refer to the Presi-
dent of the Synod and the District Presidents as ecclesiastical su-
pervisors. Bylaw 3.121 indicates that the First Vice-President “shall
be responsible to the President at all times.” Bylaw 3.123 indicates
that the four additional Vice-Presidents “shall be responsible to the
President at all times for the performance of their duties as Vice-
Presidents.” Bylaw 3.125 indicates that the Vice-Presidents “shall
be elected advisors of the President” and “may upon his request or
as provided by the Synod assist him in discharging his responsibil-
ities or represent him.”

Question 3D: Are the Vice-Presidents of the District to be un-
derstood in any sense as “ecclesiastical supervisors,” e.g., over the
Circuit Counselors and/or individual members of the District whom
they represent or by whom they were elected?

Opinion: The relationship of District Vice-Presidents to the Dis-
trict President is the same as the relationship of the Vice-Presidents
of the Synod to the President of the Synod.

Question 3E: Is the President of the Synod an “ecclesiastical su-
pervisor” over the individual members of the Synod?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.101 indicates that the President shall carry
out his ecclesiastical duties in the Districts of the Synod through
the District Presidents. The same bylaw goes on to state that the
President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all officers
of the Synod and its agencies, the individual Districts of the Synod,
and all District Presidents. Therefore, the President of the Synod is
not an “ecclesiastical supervisor” over the individual members of
the Synod. Such supervision is the responsibility of District Presi-
dents (Bylaw 4.73).

Question 3F: Could a member congregation bypass its “imme-
diate” ecclesiastical supervisor to get permission from a Circuit
Counselor or District President? (E.g., the congregation wants to
participate in an interfaith prayer service in the wake of a horrible
disaster, but the pastor of the congregation is against it. Can the
leadership and/or members of a congregation get permission from
an ecclesiastical supervisor who is higher up the totem pole than
their own pastor to grant them permission?)

Opinion: The Commission notes that a congregation does have
a direct relationship to the Synod, to its District, and to the District
President as ecclesiastical supervisor (Art. XII 7; Bylaws 4.73 and
4.75). Questions regarding ecclesiastical supervision on the con-
gregational level should be referred to the Commission on Theol-
ogy and Church Relations.

Adopted June 23, 2003

Exceptions to Electoral Circuit Requirements (03-2355)

A parish pastor in a letter dated May 25, 2003, requested the
Commission’s opinion regarding “the presidential power to grant
exceptions mentioned in Bylaw 3.03.”

Question: Does the presidential power to grant exceptions men-
tioned in Bylaw 3.03 apply only to those visitation circuits not
meeting either the 7 to 20 congregations and/or the 1,500 to 10,000
membership requirement? Does the bylaw allow a visitation circuit
to be divided into two electoral circuits and be granted two sets of
delegates, two pastors and twé lay, by the president upon request of
a District Board of Directors?

Opinion: Visitation Circuits (generally referred to in the Bylaws as
“Circuits”) are component parts of the Synod (Bylaw 1.05 f). They
are formed by the determination of Districts (Art. XII 3 c; Bylaw 1.05
b). Exceptions to membership requirements for visitation Circuits as
provided by Bylaw 5.01 can be made only by the President of the
Synod upon request of a District Board of Directors.

Electoral Circuits consist of either one or two adjacent visita-
tion Circuits as determined by the District according to the re-
quirements for electoral Circuits (Bylaw 3.03). As is the case with
visitation Circuits, exceptions to the bylaw requirements for elec-
toral Circuits can be made only by the President of the Synod upon
request of a District Board of Directors.

Therefore, in response to the above questions, existing visita-
tion Circuits are the basic entities for determining representation to
conventions of the Synod. When one or two adjacent existing visi-
tation Circuits fail to meet the requirements of Bylaw 3.03 for elec-
toral Circuits, the bylaw provides to the President of the Synod the
authority to grant exceptions in such cases. However, the bylaw
does not provide opportunity to divide visitation Circuits to form
electoral Circuits, nor does it provide to the President the authority
to grant exceptions in such cases.

This opinion is consistent with Opinion Ag. 337 of the Com-
mission, “Temporary Electoral Circuit” (July 21-22, 1972), which
ratified a response provided by the Secretary of the Synod to a re-
lated question. The Secretary had stated that it was “not permissible
to move two parishes from one visitation circuit to another merely
for electoral circuit purposes (the choosing of delegates to a syn-
odical convention).”

Adopted June 23, 2003

2004 Convention Workbook