LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 3–4, 2009, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

commission awaits responses from the Council of Presidents and the President of the Synod allowing them
opportunity to submit information in writing regarding the matter at issue (Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b]) before it responds.
90. Constitution Article VI Terminology (09-2544)
In a December 1, 2008 letter addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) and the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), a district president requested definitions of key terms
in Article VI of the Synod’s Constitution, such as “unionism,” “separatism,” “heterodox,” “mixed confession,”
etc. The CCM discussed the request in light of prior opinions by the commission touching on the subject of this
request. It was agreed that the CCM would suggest that the CTCR take the lead in addressing the theological
questions at issue, after which the CCM would respond to any remaining constitutional or bylaw questions.
The commission agreed that this question will remain on its agenda until such time as a response is issued by
the CTCR. The secretary was asked, however, to communicate with the district president who submitted the
request to learn of his intentions and of any time expectations associated with his request.
91. Doctrinal Review of Commission on Worship Materials (09-2547)
In an e-mailed letter dated January 31, 2009, a pastor of the Synod requested an opinion regarding the doctrinal
review of a list of contemporary Christian songs produced and made public by the Commission on Worship.
After brief discussion of the request in light of Bylaws 1.9.1.1 and 3.9.3.2.2, the commission agreed to respond
to the pastor that it would give his request attention after allowing the Commission on Worship to submit in
writing information regarding the matter at issue (Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b]). The requested response having been
received only a short time before its meeting, the commission agreed to give attention to this question at its July
meeting.
92. Concordia University Ann Arbor Bylaws (09-2552)
In a letter dated February 19, 2009, legal counsel for Concordia University, Ann Arbor responded to the
commission’s review of the university’s Bylaws as approved by the Board of Regents on September 12,
2008. It was noted that the board adopted most of the commission’s recommendations and requests.
Several additional changes were proposed as well.
After reviewing the changes made, the commission expressed appreciation for the board’s cooperation
and for many of the resulting changes. However, the commission noted the following:


The commission has recommended that paragraph 12.0 should include mention of the
requirement of Synod Bylaw 3.9.2.2.4 for prior examination of all amendments by the Synod’s
Commission on Constitutional Matters to ascertain that they are in harmony with the
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. This change has not been made. Further, the
commission called attention to the need for the Board for University Education to conduct their
own review prior to that of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, noting that there is also no
provision for such review.



The commission appreciated the response of the Board of Regents to its recommendation that
language concerning the removal of a board member should be omitted for the time being to
allow the Synod to take an action applicable to all boards. It asked the secretary to forward this
particular section of legal counsel’s letter to the Commission on Structure for its edification:
As requested by CCM in its July 7, 2008 letter, the Board of Regents did remove
the language concerning the removal of a Regent for cause, Bylaw 4.08. We left

63