LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 304

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

304 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

would similarly be consistent with proposed Article XI F 2. As
such, the answer to the question presented is that if the proposed
Constitutional Amendment A entitled “To Amend Constitution Re-
garding Officer and Board Responsibilities” as set forth in Reso-
lution 7-21 of the 2004 convention of the Synod is not passed by a
two-thirds majority vote, it would not effect the implementation or
validity of any other resolutions or changes to the bylaws passed
at the 2004 convention.

Bylaw 14.01 (Bylaw 7.1 in the 2004 revised Handbook) pro-
vides that amendments may be made to the Bylaws by the Synod in
convention provided the amendments are not contrary to the Con-
stitution. Before presentation to the convention, the Commission
on Constitutional Matters is also required to review the proposed
amendment to the Constitution or other existing bylaws.-

Resolution 7-21 proposes to change Article XI F 2 of the Con-
stitution as follows:

2. The Board of Directors is the legal representative of the Synod. It
is the custodian of all the property of the Synod, directly or by its dele-
gation of such authority to an agency of the Synod. It shall exercise su-
pervision over all the property and business affairs of the Synod except

Synred to the extent m rity and duties have been dele-
gated by the Constitution, Bylaws or resolutions of the Synod to other
officers and agencies of the Synod or where the voting members of the

Synod through the adoption of Bylaws or by other convention action

have assigned specific areas of responsibility to separate corporate or

trust entities, and as to those the Board of Directors shall have general

oversight responsibility as set forth in the Bylaws.

The responsibilities of the Board of Directors under Article XI F
2 have been interpreted on a number of occasions in prior opinions
of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The language of the
proposed amendment states more clearly what the existing lan-
guage has been interpreted to mean. For example, in Opinion 03-
2358 the Commission opined that the authority of the Board of Di-
rectors was limited by the existing language in circumstances
where the Synod has delegated authority or duties to another officer
or agency of the Synod. After reviewing the Board’s authority
under both Article XI F 2 and Bylaw 3.183 (to be renumbered
Bylaw 3.3.5 and its subparts in the 2004 revised Handbook), the
opinion found that the Synod had delegated certain authority to the
Board for Higher Education, and that the Board of Directors’ au-
thority was thus limited. The opinion states:

While the Synod could have adopted for its governance a corporate
model, with power concentrated in a board of directors, subject only to
election or reelection every three years, the Synod instead chose as its
church governance structure a system which retains ultimate authority
to the membership in convention, very much consistent with the pre-
incorporation structure of the Synod. In fulfilling its function as
“church,” the Synod has determined in convention to establish boards
and commissions as the best way to carry out various church purposes
and functions, as it reserved the right to do in Article VII of the Articles
of Incorporation. Bylaw 3.01 indicates that the Synod in convention
“establishes general synodical positions and policies, provides overall
program direction and priorities, and evaluates all such positions, pro-
grams, policies, directions, and priorities in order to provide responsible
service for and on behalf of its members.” The Synod has chosen to al-
locate duties, powers, and responsibilities among various officers,
boards (including the Board of Directors of the Synod), and commis-
sions, holding each ultimately responsible to the Synod itself through
the synodical conventions.

Reference may also be made to Opinion 03-2357, affirming the
same interpretation with respect to authority regarding KFUO del-
egated by the Synod to the Board for Communication Services and
Opinion 03-2359 with respect to authority to determine the man-
ner and level of circulation of Reporter. Opinion 03-2358 also re-
viewed the earlier opinions of the Commission recognizing the lim-
itations of the authority of the Board of Directors under the existing
language of Article XI F 2, including a series of opinions dating
back to 1976 involving implementation of New Orleans Resolu-
tion 6-31, (Ag. 591, Ag. 591A-B, Ag. 927, Ag. 9-27A, Ag. 934,
and Ag. 934B-J) as well as a 1998 opinion which reviewed the ef-
fort of the Board of Directors to move the video studio of the
Synod from the Board for Communication Services to General Ser-
vices, Opinion Ag. 2094 (May 22, 1998).

2007 Convention Workbook

Adopted Oct. 6-8, 2004

Supervision of Uncertified Church Workers (04-2415)

A district president in a December 2, 2004 letter to the Com-
mission submitted a series of 15 questions regarding the responsi-
bility for supervision of non-rostered church workers (including an
“uncertified” pastor) employed by LCMS congregations.

Question 1: With regard to Article XIII, under whose authority
does an uncertified worker in LCMS congregations
fall? If a local congregation has an uncertified worker
who acts contrary to “the confession laid down in Arti-
cle II and to the conditions of membership laid down
in Article VI,” is the local pastor as a member of
Synod responsible for the supervision of the uncerti-
fied church worker in doctrine and practice? Is the con-
gregation as a member of Synod—and their Voters As-
sembly in specific—responsible for the supervision of
the uncertified church worker in doctrine and practice?
Is this a shared responsibility between the pastor and
congregation (Voter’s Assembly) as members of
Synod?

Question 2: If the uncertified church worker is a pastor who acts
contrary to “the confession laid down in Article Il and
to the conditions of membership laid down in Article
VI,” is the local congregation as a member of Synod—
and their Voters Assembly in specific—responsible for
his supervision in doctrine and practice?

Question 3: If a congregation’s pastor refuses to remove an uncer-
tified church worker who acts contrary “the confession
laid down in Article II and to the conditions of mem-
bership laid down in Article VI,” is the District respon-
sible for assuring the removal of the uncertified church
worker as it is with certified workers in the LCMS in
Article XIII.3? If the pastor refuses to “deal with him
in accordance with the Word of God,” is the pastor
open to expulsion from the Synod himself or does he
forfeit his membership in Synod?

Question 4: If the local congregation refuses to remove an uncerti-
fied church worker—including its uncertified pastor—
who acts contrary “the confession laid down in Article
II and to the conditions of membership Jaid down in
Article VI,” is the District responsible for assuring the
removal of the uncertified church worker as it is with
regard to certified workers in the LCMS in Article
XIII.3? lf the congregation refuses to “deal with him
in accordance with the Word of God,” does the con-
gregation forfeit its membership in the LCMS in ac-
cordance with Article XIII?

Question 5: Is there a difference with regard to “offensive con-
duct?” If a local congregation has an uncertified
worker who persists in “offensive conduct,” is the pas-
tor responsible for the supervision of his or her con-
duct? Is the congregation—and their Voters Assembly
in specific—responsible for the supervision of his or
her conduct? Is this a shared responsibility between the
pastor and congregation as members of Synod?

Question 6: If a local pastor refuses to remove an uncertified
church worker who persists in “offensive conduct,” is
the District responsible for assuring the removal of the
uncertified church worker? If the pastor refuses to
“deal with him in accordance with the Word of God,”
is the pastor open to expulsion for the Synod or does
he forfeit his membership in Synod?

Question 7: If the local congregation refuses to remove an uncerti-
fied church worker—including its uncertified pastor—
who persists in “offensive conduct,” is the District re-
sponsible for assuring the removal of the uncertified
church worker? If the congregation refuses to “deal
with him in accordance with the Word of God,” does
the congregation forfeit its membership in the LCMS
in accordance with Article XII?