LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 304

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

304

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

includes the creation of the Office of National Mission and the Office of International Mission by 2010 Res. 8-08A. He may not supplant or frustrate this action of the convention or do away with the
offices themselves.
Bylaw 3.3.1.2 also gives the President the responsibility to oversee
the activities of all officers, executives and agencies of the Synod. The
issue of to whom authority has been delegated to appoint the head
of these two offices has resulted in confusion, particularly among
those most intimately involved. During the work of the Blue Ribbon
Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance and the deliberations
of the floor committee charged with evaluating and presenting the
results of that work to the convention, members of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters informally advised that the elimination of
all program boards, the concentration in the office of the President
of the responsibility for the carrying out of those functions, and the
resulting amassing and centralization of power without appropriate
checks and balances as had historically been in place was neither
wise nor constitutionally permissible without an amendment to the
Constitution. Discussions ensued regarding methods to avoid perceived constitutional problems and continued up to the floor committee presentation to the convention. However, no formal opinion was
ever requested from or issued by the commission on this important
issue. As an example of the scope of the discussions, if the goal was
the creation of a policy-based governance model, consideration was
given to a possible requirement that the President might be made
accountable to the Board of Directors in all his duties—a result that
conflicted with his ecclesiastical responsibilities.
The task force, and ultimately the floor committee, moved away
from the concept of creating two advisory commissions to that of
creating two fully functioning policy boards, which many of those
involved, including the Commission on Constitutional Matters, understood to be fully functioning operating boards. The proposed and
adopted changes to the Bylaws included definitions which support
that interpretation (Bylaws 1.2.1 [l] and [n]). The convention updated
Bylaw 1.2.1 (h) defining an executive director to include the top
staff administrator of a mission board, yet a purely “policy” board
would have no staff administrator. Bylaw 1.2.1 (n) was also updated
to expressly include the mission boards within the definition of an
“operating board.”
Leading up to the 2010 convention, many delegates and members
of the Synod expressed concerns to the task force and floor committee
similar to those expressed by the commission. Now, in the aftermath
of the convention, the above question has been submitted to the commission requiring a formal and binding opinion. Despite its continuing
concern in light of a clear and consistent understanding of historical
Synod polity and practice, and despite continuing serious reservations
about the lack of appropriate checks and balances, a dispassionate
analysis of the actual explicit language of the Constitution reveals no
prohibition of the elimination of all program boards. Likewise, the
language of the Constitution does not prohibit the vesting of authority for control of all programmatic functions of the Synod directly
or indirectly in the office of the President. Despite the references
in Bylaw 1.2.1 discussed above, which suggest a different intent, a
dispassionate analysis of the actual, explicit language of the entirety
of the bylaws as amended by the 2010 convention indicates that the
convention in fact eliminated all program boards and vested authority for all programmatic functions directly or indirectly in the office
of the President.
Given the confusion which has followed the convention’s actions, given the commission’s ongoing and serious concerns, and
recognizing that the results of the convention’s actions as described
in this opinion may not have been that which was actually intended
2013 Convention Workbook

by the convention delegates, the commission will refer this issue to
the Commission on Handbook for appropriate consideration.
Finally, with respect to the issue of the selection of the executive
directors of the two mission offices (the Office of National Mission
and the Office of International Mission), the commission finds that
such appointments cannot be made until the President of the Synod, as
required by Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (e),6 consults with and receives the concurrence of the appropriate mission board on a slate of candidates before
a person is appointed to that position. With respect to the appointment
of the Executive Director of the Office of National Mission, that
process was not followed and the appointment was not proper. In
consultation with the President, however, he has acknowledged this
oversight and has assured the commission that he will act promptly
to correct that error.
(Adopted Nov. 11–13, 2011)

Call of Missionaries for Service Outside of District
(11-2607)
An ordained minister of the Synod, via an August 10, 2011 email,
submitted a question to the commission regarding the authority of a
district to call members of the district to serve as missionaries outside
the district. The commission responded as follows.
Question: Does a district of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod have the authority under the Constitution and
Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to
call members of their district as missionaries and place
them in locations of service around the United States
outside their district?
Opinion: No. The principles governing districts of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod are contained in Article XII of the
Constitution as well as Bylaw 4.1. The Synod itself has retained
exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the placement of foreign missionaries (Bylaws 4.4.3 [b]), 4.1.5, and 3.8.3). No express provision
of the Constitution or Bylaws directly addresses the issue raised.
With respect to mission outreach which crosses district lines, the
issue was addressed as to individual congregations by 2010 Res.
1-07A.7 The Bylaws now expressly address the issue with respect to
the efforts of an individual congregation. Bylaw 4.1.6.2 reads:
4.6.2	Congregations interested in expanding their Gospel outreach
into an area that crosses district lines are encouraged first to
discuss their intent with their own district officials, followed by
discussion with the appropriate district officials and the local
congregations impacted by such work.
(a) Any such expansion of Gospel outreach into an area that
crosses district lines shall require the concurrence of
both the president of the receiving geographical district
and the board or committee responsible for mission in
that district.
(b) The ecclesiastical supervision of a new church start,
satellite worship site, or any ministry established by a
congregation in another district shall be decided by the
affected district presidents.

The Synod contains two non-geographic districts, the English District and the SELC District. There are no geographic limitations on
the mission work which each undertakes, and any domestic mission
of such districts will occur in the geographic area of another district.
Even in this case, non-geographic districts are encouraged to consult
with other districts.
With respect to the remaining districts (all defined by the Synod
on a geographic basis), while there is no express limitation on one
district calling a missionary to serve in a different district, it would be
inconsistent with the concept that a district is the Synod in that place
for one district to call a missionary to serve the people of a different