LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 6–7, 2008, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

put the pastor, not a committee, in a position of responsibility and authority for the
congregation to pursue a new vision for mission and ministry.
Also included with the questions were the following comments from the questioners:
Since part of the Synod’s Ablaze! initiative includes the revitalization of 2,000
congregations, the Transforming Congregations Network was put together. It stems from
a process begun by Dwight Marable, President of Missions International. It comes
primarily from a Baptist background and has a different polity behind it, enabling it to
perhaps do things the LCMS is not able to do, or at least may not be able to do as easily.
The intent of the above paragraph is to enable a congregation to implement an
“accountable leadership model” of governance for an interim period. If it proves
successful, then a congregation may choose to adopt that model as a more permanent
structure for mission and ministry. Please note that it calls for the suspension of only
certain bylaws, not the entire set of bylaws.
Question 1: May a congregation of the Synod suspend or hold in abeyance some of their bylaws,
specifically those dealing with elections, officers, and governance structure, in order to
pursue a new vision for mission and ministry?
Opinion: The Commission on Constitutional Matters is allowed to give opinions only regarding issues
arising under the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. The conditions for membership in
the Synod are contained in Article VI of the Constitution and Bylaws 2.2 through 2.4. Assuming the
constitution and bylaws of an individual congregation allow the suspension or holding in abeyance of
some of its bylaws, then so long as a congregation does not seek to suspend or hold in abeyance those
bylaws necessary for membership in the Synod, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not prohibit
such holding in abeyance or a temporary suspension. Should the congregation determine to amend its
bylaws or constitution, however, the proposed constitution and/or bylaw changes would need to be
submitted for approval as required by Bylaw 2.4.1 (a).
In the more likely situation where there is no provision in the existing governing documents allowing for
such suspension or holding in abeyance, no matter how well intended and no matter how “short term” the
suspension is intended to last, such action would result effectively in an amendment of those governing
documents. Bylaw 2.4.1 (a) requires such amendments to be submitted to the district president, who in
turn is required to refer the proposed amendments to the district’s constitution committee for review and
to provide a recommendation to the district’s board of directors for final action under Bylaw 2.4.1 (c).
This is not to say, should it determine that the proposed experimentation is to be encouraged, that the
district could not adopt an expedited procedure to facilitate a speedy review of such proposed governance
changes.
Question 2: If a congregation were to suspend or hold in abeyance select bylaws, would this have a
negative impact on its 501 (c) (3) status?
Opinion: The answer to this question is not dependent upon the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of
the Synod. Questions regarding this issue should be addressed to local legal counsel or the Internal
Revenue Service.
Question 3: If a congregation were to suspend or hold in abeyance select bylaws, would this have a
negative impact on its membership in the Synod?

32