LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 15-17, 2002, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question: “What is the applicability, if any, of Chapter X of the Bylaws to membership in the Association
for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc.?”
Opinion: The Commission notes that the “Chapter X” referred to in the question has since been
incorporated by convention action into Bylaw 3.925 (2001 Handbook, pp. 74-75). In any case, the
applicability of this bylaw to the particular matter in dispute cannot be decided without factual
determinations that are beyond the scope of responsibility of this commission.
19. Ecclesiastical Supervision of Rostered RSO Workers (01-2255)
In a memorandum dated December 13, 2001, a District President offered comment regarding the
Commission’s earlier decision (01-2234) governing the ecclesiastical supervision of rostered workers
who have been called or appointed by Recognized Service Organizations. He called attention to the fact
that application of that opinion in the case of RSOs that deploy workers throughout the country and world
can make it difficult for District Presidents to provide appropriate ecclesiastical supervision. He therefore
suggested that this concern be included with this Commission’s previously-announced request of the
Commission on Structure that it provide clarification in the Bylaws in this regard.
The Commission is pleased to forward a copy of the District President’s letter to the Commission on
Structure for its consideration.
20. Function of the Commission’s GUIDELINES for Constitutions and Bylaws (02-2256)
A pastor of a congregation working on its Constitution and Bylaws in a February 13, 2002 letter asked
several questions regarding the Commission’s “GUIDELINES for the Constitution and Bylaws of a
Lutheran Congregation.” He noted that these guidelines are used and interpreted differently across the
Synod.
Question 1: “We would like your committee to issue an opinion as to the function of the guidelines in
producing a constitution and by-laws. Is it their intent to be guidelines or is the essence of the
material to be used verbatim?”
Opinion: The Commission calls attention to its comments in the Preface of said guidelines. Noting the
desirability of uniformity and also the wide divergences that exist among the congregations of the Synod,
the Commission states that what is included in its document “should be regarded as guidelines.” Noting
that Bylaw 2.03 requires that all constitutions and bylaws, including changes to existing constitutions and
bylaws, be submitted to a District standing constitution committee for examination and to the District’s
Board of Directors for approval, the Commission states that such committees, “in evaluating constitutions
and bylaws that are submitted, will judge them in light of the principles contained in this document.” The
Commission also describes its approach to the guidelines by explaining that “the following are subjects
that should ordinarily be addressed” by a congregation. It is therefore not the Commission’s intention that
the material must be used verbatim.
Question 2: “Our mother church has in ‘3.0 Confessional Standard’ that the God’s Word (sic) is ‘without
error’ in addition to the usual verbiage. That wording, we feel from looking at our Synodical
position, is not going beyond either the Scriptures or the Synod’s position. It is without
question the position of the Brief Statement. Would such a modification be permissible in
light of the guidelines?”

12