LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 13-14, 1969, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

convention no pastor from the Indiana District can be elected to the Board of Directors, and 4. That if
Pastor Nitz should be re-elected and is still on the Board of Directors at the time of the 1971 convention,
Dr. Buege will be ineligible unless he has in the meantime transferred to still another District from which
no pastor has been elected to the present Board. The Commission decided to send this ruling to Pastor
Nitz with a carbon copy to Mr. Walter Kayser who is the chairman of the Board for Convention
Nominations, and to state for the record that the Commission had never ruled on this matter before. The
Secretary was asked to formulate the involved opinion.
233. CTCR Opinion Re. ALC Fellowship: Both Dr. Harms and the CTCR through its Secretary, Dr.
Ralph Bohlmann, had inquired whether it was necessary for the CTCR to make any recommendation to
the convention regarding the issue of fellowship with the ALC. Both Sommermeyer and Mueller had
drafted memoranda pointing out that the CTCR has already discharged its responsibility by making a
recommendation to the New York convention, that it is not obligated to make another recommendation to
the Denver convention but that if it chooses to do so it would be within the scope of its general
assignment. The Commission resolved to have Chairman Kuenne fuse the two memoranda for reply to
both Dr. Harms and Dr. Bohlmann.
234. Procedures Governing Charges of False Teaching Against Faculty Members: The Board for Higher
Education had inquired about the relationship between Handbook Section 6.83 "Removal from Office"
and the interpretation which the Commission had given relative to procedures to be followed in the case
involving two men on the St. Paul faculty. The Commission decided to inform the Board for Higher
Education that we had reviewed the document that we had prepared upon President Lieske's request and
that this continues to be our suggestion as to how to proceed under the circumstances, in full recognition
of the fact that neither the Constitution nor the Bylaws address themselves directly to the concerns
involved.
235. ALC Referendum: Since many congregations have requested the convention to hold a
congregational referendum on the question of whether or not to establish fellowship with the American
Lutheran Church, some time was given to a discussion of the constitutionality of such a referendum prior
to any constitutional amendment to provide for the same. The discussion will be continued at the June
meeting, in order to make certain that all aspects of the question have been considered.
236. Next Meeting: An attempt will be made to move the June 5-6 meeting to June 12-13 if the calendars
of several of the men are clear, said meeting to be held in Chicago.
237. New Haven: The Commission next took up the lengthy letter from Dr. Harms in which he expressed
some misgivings about the Commission's supplementary opinion on the New Haven case and indicated
that he was not minded to act upon it. The Commission members had received this letter in advance for
thorough study and now adopted a 4-point reply.
1. The Commission reiterated the basic opinion which it had delivered in its meeting of June 13-14, 1968:
"After thorough study of the Constitution and Bylaws the Commission on Constitutional Matters has
come to the conclusion that this [having a pastor who is not a member of the Synod] is not permissible
and that such a congregation cannot remain a member of the Synod or exercise any rights and privileges
of membership." In the opinion of the Commission it is unthinkable that a convention would overrule this
opinion. It is applicable at all times.
2. The Commission held that its supplementary opinion of December 5-6, 1968 is valid. However, since
the President had indicated that he does not intend to make use of it at the present time, the Commission
decided to withdraw it for the time being. Since the supplementary, opinion deals by name with a specific
case, the Commission felt that if it is ever to be used the Commission would wish to review the