LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 15, 2020, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

•

•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•

•

Texas District.” Such a statement would best precede any substantive content of these subsidiary
or secondary district bylaws.
Likewise, the statement in Bylaw I A, “The Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (the
“Bylaws of Synod”) are referenced throughout these bylaws and any and all applicable sections as
referenced are incorporated herein,” appears to imply that only certain cited sections of the Synod
Bylaws are applicable to the district. Synod’s Bylaws in general, however, are primary to the
district.
The commission notes that the change to Texas Bylaw I A, regarding automatic incorporation of
changes made by the Synod to its own Bylaws seems to be incorrect. Something like the existing
language should remain, as any such changes adopted by the Synod in convention to its own Bylaws
do not need to be ratified by the Texas District Board of Directors. Changes to Texas District
Bylaws necessitated by amendments or resolutions made by the Synod convention, on the other
hand, are to be dealt with under the procedure of Article XV c. This item and the preceding one
could be handled by adopting the language suggested under the first bullet and then removing
redundant elements of subsequent bylaws.
At Article III 3 A, the commission notes that the expansion of world mission “through District”
needs to be understood in light of or reconciled with Synod Bylaws 4.1.5 and 3.8.3.
With regard to Article IV, the commission notes that the statement of objectives is generally
redundant with, but not identical to, those stated in the district’s articles of incorporation. Further,
under objective no. 1, the text is subtly different from that in the articles and, in fact, gives a false
impression, by reading “who as congregations or [reads “and” in the articles] as individual
members of such congregations.” While the individual members of the congregations would be
expected to share the confessional commitment of the congregations, rendering the and of the
articles sensible, the or of Bylaw Article IV [1] would be of uncertain implication. The district
relates to congregations of the Lutheran confession, not to individuals within congregations which
may or may not share in that confession. While the district assuredly does not mean to imply such
a relationship, the language is at very least unclear. The commission questions whether individual
members of member congregations should even be mentioned as a class in the articles or bylaws
of a district.
With respect to Bylaws 1.009 (b) and 7.007 (a), the term of appointed members of the board of
mission administration is limited to three years (Synod Bylaw 4.7.4 [2]).
In Bylaw 1.027 (a), the Synod’s governing documents no longer distinguish the category of
“assistant pastor.” The language here should probably be changed, as in Synod Bylaw 3.3.1 (a),
“may be called as an assistant pastor in an assisting capacity” (see Synod Bylaw 2.5.6).
In Bylaw 1.053, the ranking of vice-presidents requires a separate ballot for each position, as each
ranking must be by a majority vote (that is, one plurality ballot does not suffice to rank all the vicepresidents). See the example of Synod Bylaw 3.12.2.7 (g).
At Bylaw 4.005 (a), the inclusion or omission of properly submitted overtures (i.e., by an author
listed in Bylaw 3.1.6.2 and submitted according to the regulations of the district) in the convention
Workbook is not a matter of discretionary authority for the district president, except as allowed in
Bylaw 3.1.6.2 (a–b). This should be clarified.
At Bylaw 4.029, it may be helpful to note the periodic election of a member of Synod’s Committee
for Convention Nominations by the district (Synod Bylaw 3.12.3.1–2).
At Bylaw 6.009, the first sentence of the newly added language does not accurately reflect the role
of the board of directors as stipulated in Synod Bylaw 4.5 or the pattern of Synod Bylaw 3.3.4.3.
Such an expansive description of the board’s duty might be construed to conflict, for example, with
the district president’s exclusive role.
At Bylaw 6.009 (g) and 14.009 (c), the commission questions whether this might refer to “status”
or “accommodation” calls, which would be prohibited. The district may, however, (Synod Bylaw
2.11.1 [i]) endorse a specialized ministry, which would enable the person serving in that ministry

CCM Minutes – September 15, 2020 – Page 35