LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 4–5, 2022, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion:
With the exception of the selection of representatives of the foreign mission areas of the Synod, Bylaw
section 3.1.4 does not clearly and explicitly state how the representative to the conventions of the Synod is
to be chosen. In the case of district boards of directors and Synod boards and commissions, it can logically
be assumed that the board or commission would make the selection, although this is not stated.
Given the process described in Bylaw section 3.1.3, in which case those whom the advisory delegate is
representing make the selection, it could be inferred that in Bylaw section 3.1.4 the selection should be
made by those who the individual is representing, which in most instances would be the boards and
commissions and district boards of directors they represent, unless otherwise specified. In applying this
inference to the selection of faculty representatives of the educational institutions, since the number of
representatives an institution is allowed is determined by the number of rostered members of the faculty, it
appears that the intended conclusion is that these rostered members of the faculty should be the ones to
make the selection.
However, this is clearly an inference and, since Bylaw 3.1.4.1 (a) does not address the issue of how the
advisory representative of an educational institution is to be selected, the commission must conclude that
Bylaw 3.1.4.1 (a) does not provide a definitive answer to the question as asked.
The commission notes that the present questions reflect the reality that the essential content of these
provisions has remained static while the makeup of Concordia college and university faculties has changed
substantially over time. This commission therefore recommends that the Commission on Handbook
consider this matter and provide language that clarifies—if the above inference is to be made normative—
that the representative is to be selected by those individuals being represented, which would be consistent,
regarding those eligible to make the selection, with Bylaw section 3.1.3.
162. Review of Commission on Handbook Proposal, Bylaw 3.9.5.2.2 (22-3001)
The Commission on Handbook (COH) at its meeting of October 28 took action on its Action Item 19-027,
which involves a change to Bylaw 3.9.5.2.2, originally proposed by the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations, to clarify language related to the handling of church fellowship matters. COH approved
the proposal as a non-substantive change, subject to this commission’s supporting its impression that the
new wording will comprehend those actions formerly under Bylaw 3.9.5.2.2 (e) within the scope of
proposed Bylaw 3.9.5.2.2 (b)(2).
This commission finds that the proposed change—while it may in the end be non-substantive, allowing the
same scope of actions under new bylaw language—is, nonetheless, a substantial change of language
regarding a critical function of the Synod, namely the determination of church fellowship between the
Synod and other church bodies. The commission suggests to its sister commission that the matter be
submitted to the convention as part of a bylaw revision overture.
The Secretary will therefore hold in abeyance any changes to the Handbook and commend COH Action
Item 19-027 back to COH.
163. Review of 2019 Res. 7-03 Draft on Concordia University Governance (20-2963A)
At the request of the chairman of the 2019 Res. 7-03 Task Force on Concordia University Governance, the
commission reviewed the most recent draft of the proposal. The Secretary received comments to be shared
with the committee.
164. 2019 Resolution 9-17 Study of Voting Privilege in the LCMS
The commission has not received further correspondence on this report, which was published to the Synod
and will be republished in the convention Workbook.

CCM Minutes – November 4–5, 2022 – Page 125