LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 6–7, 2018, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

of the member prove fruitless, the member is exposed to expulsion from the Synod as specified in Article
XIII.
Question 6:

What Articles and/or Bylaws of the Synod would address an infraction of Bylaw 1.8.3?

Opinion: Constitution Article XIII, Expulsion from the Synod, and Bylaw sections 2.13–2.16 and 4.4 would
generally provide the ecclesiastical supervisory mechanisms to address an infraction of Bylaw 1.8.3.
142. Wyoming District Policy Manual (17-2852A)
The commission continued its review of the materials sent by the Wyoming District, considering now the
district’s policy manual, much of which was not germane to the commission’s duty to review. The following
areas were found to require attention:
•

In “Articles of Agreement For The Multi-Congregation Parish,” Article III, paragraph 3, p. 30, it
is stated: “In the event of the dissolution of this multi-congregation parish, each Congregation will
be considered vacant. The Ordained Minister shall be eligible for a Call from any Congregation as
per the guidelines and regulations of the Synod and District.”
The CCM, in its meeting of May 22, 1998 (Ag. 2014), found as follows on a related question:
“Regardless of whether the call was issued by both congregations under a parish arrangement or
whether each congregation issued a call individually, the Commission would maintain that each
congregation has issued a call to the pastor. If this is granted, the Commission does not believe that
the relationship with the pastor can be terminated by simply dissolving the dual parish agreement.
That termination should be made in accordance with the process outlined in the constitution of the
congregation.”
It is thus improper to suggest that merely dissolving the dual-parish arrangement terminates the call
of the pastor, who has been called not by the dissolved parish (as if a now non-existent corporate
shell) but by the constituent congregations.

•

Any references to superseded Handbooks of the Synod should be updated (including the ones on
pp. 33 and 60).

•

“Endowment Guidelines,” p. 36: The commission calls to the district’s attention the special role of
the LCMS Foundation, as has been indicated (since 1981) in Bylaw 3.6.5.1.2 and its predecessors.

•

“Data Involved in Ecclesiastical Supervision,” p. 43: As parish pastors, teachers, etc. are not
employees of the district, their ecclesiastical supervision files (PIF/SET) are not “personnel files”
in the common sense, and should not be referred to as such. “Ecclesiastical supervision records”
may be a more suitable term.

•

On p. 58, the phrase “found innocent” does not accord with either criminal or civil procedure.
Perhaps what is meant is “exonerated upon the exhaustion of an appropriate investigation,” which
still begs the question of “by whom.”

•

The guideline on pp. 59ff. is a document of the Council of Presidents that has not been designated
for public dissemination.

143. Minnesota North District Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws Resubmission (17-2867A)
By a March 22, 2018, e-mail, in response to the commission’s earlier review, the Secretary of the Minnesota
North District submitted a revised proposal of changes to the district’s articles and bylaws. With regard to
the articles, the commission notes that its concerns have been addressed, although the article on amendment
has been left in a confusing state. The commission recommends a clarification of the proposed Article V as
follows (the option of whether to require adoption by two conventions being up to the district, subject to
the laws of the State of Minnesota:
CCM Minutes – April 6–7, 2018 – Page 111