LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 30–31, 2020, Page 13

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•
•
•

•

Policy 2.2.1.5: Removal of a board member for the reason of unexcused absence (the concept of
excusal is not evident here) is subject to Bylaws 1.5.7–1.5.7.1, with which this policy is
inconsistent.
Policy 2.5.4.1: The language here is of uncertain meaning and warrants clarification.
Policy chapter 3 (along with Policies 2.4.7.2 and 4.3.1.3.1, among many others) continues to
contain a very strong Policy Governance approach, detailing extensive expectations for the district
president’s executive carrying-out of almost all business and legal functions of the district. While
one presumes that this must happen with some degree of further delegation by the district president,
and while this chapter is “normed” to some extent by the foreword / preamble, the commission
remains concerned that the great administrative burden imposed by the board of directors on the
district president by way of all these delegated responsibilities not impair or impede his
ecclesiastical functioning. Additionally, the board needs to be careful to participate actively and
principally in its sole responsibility to perform the “general management and supervision of the
district’s business and legal affairs.”
Policy 4.6.10: This at least implies that the president’s non-fulfillment of duties delegated by the
board would justify removal from office as district president, which may well not be the case,
though it could be reason for the board otherwise to delegate its work. The Handbook of the Synod,
furthermore, contains no processes accessible to a district board of directors for removal of a district
president.

The board and its secretary are thanked for significant work on the document and for submitting it for
review.
65. Requirements for Call Processes by Agencies, Auxiliaries, and Recognized Service Organizations
(20-2957)
Dr. Gude and the Secretary have been assigned Commission on Handbook (COH) Issue 19-005 (COH
minutes of Oct. 18, 2019), dealing with the inclusion of material dealing with call processes by agencies,
auxiliaries, and recognized service organizations in Bylaw section 2.5, which has to do (otherwise) with
“Membership” (agencies, auxiliaries, and recognized service organizations not being members of the
Synod), as well as with the related issue of the meaning of the convention’s having placed recognized
service organizations under the rule that they “call and be served by” only those ordained ministers (or
candidates) listed in Bylaw 2.5.2.
With regard to the question of interpretation involved in the latter item, the commission understands that
with regard to Bylaw 2.5.2, “served by” refers to service in the sense of the distinctive functions of the
pastoral office, not to “service” in some purely secular sense. A divine call cannot be extended by any of
the listed calling entities to any person not listed under Bylaw 2.5.2’s (1), (2), or (3). Furthermore, such a
calling entity cannot be “served by,” in the sense of any exercise of distinctive functions of the pastoral
office, any person not listed under Bylaw 2.5.2’s (1), (2), or (3). The convention’s inclusion of recognized
service organizations in the list of calling entities in Bylaw 2.5.2 renders this restriction applicable to such.
The commission does not object to the Commission on Handbook’s relocation of the material or references
thereto for clarity’s sake, or to clarification of the above meaning with regard to Bylaw 2.5.2 and its
application to recognized service organizations.
66. District President Authority in a Congregational Controversy (20-2951)
By an email of Sept. 16, a member of the Synod inquired of the commission regarding the authority of a
district president under Constitution XII 7 and Bylaw 4.4.6, as the district president assists congregations
having internal disputes. The commission has solicited and received input from the Council of Presidents
on the request, consonant with Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b). The commission had an initial discussion of the questions
but, noting their close relation to the fundamental concepts of Const. Art. VII, left further consideration and
the formulation of an opinion to a later meeting.

CCM Minutes – October 30–31, 2020 – Page 51