LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 21−22, 2007, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The Synod has stated that a woman is not to exercise authority over man,
particularly in spiritual matters. It is true that the president of an institution may
delegate certain responsibilities to staff members. One of these responsibilities
that may be delegated is that of spiritual leadership of the institution. However,
for the reason that the power to delegate is just that and is not a release of the
responsibility, and ultimate responsibility for supervision is that of the person
delegating the responsibility, the Commission rules that on the basis of present
bylaws and resolutions of the Synod, a woman may not serve as president since
the president is to serve as the spiritual academic and administrative head of the
institution according to Bylaw 6.15. The board of regents may not delegate this
ultimate responsibility either since the bylaws specifically assign it to the
president of the institution.
When asked to reconsider this opinion, the Commission on April 6, 1984, reaffirmed its previous
decision, stating “that when Bylaw 6.15 designates the president as the “spiritual head” of the
institution, service in the position of president by a woman would be in conflict with the position
of the Synod as stated in Resolution 2-17 of the 1969 Denver convention, and reaffirmed in
conventions which followed.” This opinion was reaffirmed by a later commission in a September
14, 1999 opinion (99-2160), which stated in part:
It is the opinion of the Commission that until the Synod clearly indicates that the
term, “spiritual head,” does not involve the president of the institution in the
distinctive functions of the pastoral office and/or exercising authority over men
in spiritual matters, its decision is consistent with the position adopted by
previous conventions.
In response to the current question, the commission therefore answers that
because current Bylaw 6.12 retains the content and terminology of the Bylaw
6.15 referred to in the 1984 opinion, including the requirement that a president of
an institution serve as its “spiritual head,” the 1984 ruling of the Commission
stands because it was never overruled by a synodical convention.
Noting these earlier commission opinions, and noting that a president of an educational institution
continues to “serve as the spiritual, academic, and administrative head of the institution” (Bylaw
3.8.3.7), remains “responsible for the provision of spiritual care and nurture for every student”
(Bylaw 3.8.3.7 [h]), and “shall carefully watch over the spiritual welfare…of the students and in
general exercise such Christian discipline, instruction, and supervision as may be expected at a
Christian educational institution” (Bylaw 3.8.3.7 [i]), the Commission concludes that it continues
to be necessary for a university president to be male. And given the fact that the job description of
the position in question (provost) requires that person to serve as acting and/or interim president
when the president is unable to serve, the Commission further concludes that this position
(provost) must also be held by a male, since the responsibilities of the position remain with the
position, even were they to be delegated to another person for a period of time.
The Commission notes that the above response pertains to the matter as it stands, with the provost
serving as “acting or interim president” during a vacancy in the office of president. It is
conceivable that the responsibilities of a provost during a vacancy in the office of president could
be defined/described in such manner as would avoid using the terms “acting or interim
president,” instead specifying certain functions of the office of president to be carried out by the
provost while excluding those particular functions of the office that exercise authority over men

133