LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 16–18, 2005, Page 12

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the various conventions of the Synod over the years advocating change, Bylaw 3.8.3.6.2 establishes the
current makeup of the boards pursuant to the will of the conventions. Unless and until a convention
changes the bylaw, a board of regents will consist solely of 13 voting members.
84. Involvement of Districts in the Call Process of Mission Congregations (05-2437)
In a September 7, 2005 letter, a circuit counselor asked the following question regarding the role of the
district in the calling process of a district-subsidized mission congregation.
Question:

Can a district mission executive require a pastor to decline a properly issued call by revoking
the mission subsidy promised to a congregation?

Opinion: At its March 5, 1982 meeting the Commission on Constitutional Matters addressed a related
question from a congregation in the Central Illinois District (Ag. 1573): “Does a congregation, duly
organized, in membership with The Lutheran Church−Missouri Synod, have the inherent and unalterable
right to call her own pastor, or may a provision be made in the constitution of said congregation stating
and affirming that the right and power of calling a pastor for such a congregation shall be delegated to and
vested with the District’s Board of Directors?” The Commission responded: “The congregation must
retain the right to call a pastor. To be sure, consultation, especially in situations of subsidized
congregations, has always been customary. But the right itself belongs to the congregation (see for
instance Article VII; Article VI, 3; Bylaw 5.01, a).”
In a March 23, 2000 opinion (99-2171) the Commission, after referring to the above-referenced 1982
opinion, further stated: “In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the right to call a pastor
rests solely with the congregation that the pastor is to serve. Should a District threaten to withhold its
subsidy unless a subsidized congregation adheres to the wishes of the District relative to the calling of a
pastor, the congregation may utilize the Synod’s dispute resolution process to determine if such a threat is
coercion and a violation of Article VII of the Constitution of the Synod.”
Accordingly, the Commission responds as follows to the question at hand: If the congregation in question
is a rostered member of the Synod, the Synod has assured the congregation in Article VII of its
Constitution, “In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising
legislative or coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government
it is but an advisory body.” As a member of the Synod, the congregation has agreed, in accordance with
Bylaws 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, to seek the counsel of its district president when calling a pastor and to call and
be served only by LCMS-rostered ordained ministers.
Therefore, assuming that the congregation in question has sought the counsel of its district president
during the calling process, a district (or one of its staff persons) may not coerce the congregation relative
to the calling of its pastor nor may it coerce a pastor upon receipt of the congregation’s call, since the
right and responsibility to call the pastor rests solely with the calling congregation. Should a district
threaten to withhold its financial support of the subsidized congregation unless the calling congregation
and/or the called pastor adhere to the wishes of the district relative to the call of the pastor, the
congregation may utilize the Synod’s dispute resolution process to determine if such a threat is coercion
and a violation of Article VII of the Constitution of the Synod.
85. Authority of the Board of Directors (05-2438)
A pastor member of the Synod in a letter dated September 10, 2005, after calling attention to several
bylaws describing the authority of the Board of Directors and of the President of the Synod, asked a series
of questions regarding a specific action of the Board of Directors during its August 2005 meeting. The
44