LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 11–13, 2011, Page 11

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

begins with congregations and circuits and is to be finally determined by conventions of the Synod.
Because the 2010 convention adopted the structural changes described in this opinion without having
adopted a triennial emphasis before adjournment, and because the newly established mission boards had
not yet had opportunity to organize themselves, the President of the Synod took the lead in attempting to
formulate for and on behalf of the Synod such an emphasis for the national office for the current
triennium. Because of the responsibility of the two mission boards, it is incumbent on the mission boards
to take the lead in developing a current mission emphasis, from which goals will be established for the
National and International Mission Offices, and from which the mission boards will formulate policies
embracing the triennial emphases until the next convention has opportunity to develop new mission and
ministry emphases for the following triennium.
Question 2: The July 2011 issue of Reporter on page 3 speaks of Rev. John Barton Day as “[the one
who] will head the Office of National Mission” and later in the article uses the words “until
a head is appointed” and then the article goes on to speak of “leading the unit.” Are these
terms and references in harmony with the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod?
Opinion: As discussed above, it would be appropriate to refer to Rev. Day as the executive director of the
Office of National Mission.
Question 3: What is the correct title for the two top staff positions for the Office of National Mission and
the Office of International Mission according to the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod?
Opinion: As described above, the top staff positions for the Office of National Mission and the Office of
International Mission may be designated as the Executive Director of the Office of National Mission and
the Executive Director of the Office of International Mission.
Question 4: The above cited issues of Reporter seem to indicate that the appointment of Rev. John
Barton Day to the Office (“Department”? “Unit”?) of National Mission and that the
appointment, yet to be made, to the Office (“Department”? “Unit”?) of International Mission
was and will be made by the President of the Synod. Does the President of the Synod have
the authority to NOT create or NOT recognize an Office of National Mission (and Office of
International Mission) and, rather, create a “department” or “unit” to take on the
responsibilities of that office? Who has the authority to appoint/call these two positions
(executive directors of the two offices) according to the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod? Does anyone other than the Board for International Mission and the Board
for National Mission have the authority, according to the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod, to make these appointments?
Opinion: Neither the President nor anyone else in the Synod has authority to disregard or overrule actions
of the convention. The Office of National Mission and the Office of International Mission were created
by convention action. The President is charged with the responsibility for seeing to it that the resolutions
of the Synod are carried out (Constitution, Art. XI B 4; Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1). This includes the creation of the
Office of National Mission and the Office of International Mission by 2010 Res. 8-08A. He may not
supplant or frustrate this action of the convention or do away with the offices themselves.
Bylaw 3.3.1.2 also gives the President the responsibility to oversee the activities of all officers, executives
and agencies of the Synod. The issue of to whom authority has been delegated to appoint the head of
these two offices has resulted in confusion, particularly among those most intimately involved. During the
205