LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 21-22, 1972, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Matters to make a proper judgment, although it might still be necessary to involve still others, such as
the CTCR, in the evaluation process.
158. Duplication of Advisory Delegates and Advisory Representatives (Ag. 351): The secretary asked
the Commission to rule on three questions which had arisen in connection with preconvention
registrations:
1. May the faculty members of a synodical institution located within that District be counted
among the advisory pastors (or teachers) in order to determine how many advisory delegates the
advisory members may send to the convention on the basis of the ratio of one delegate for every
30 advisory members?
2. Are such faculty members eligible to be chosen among advisory delegates?
3. May such faculty members cast ballots in electing such advisory delegates?'
At issue was especially the interpretation of the second sentence of Bylaw 1.61 f which had been added
by the Milwaukee convention upon recommendation of the Committee on Organization which felt that
there should not be a two fold opportunity on the part, for instance, of faculty members to serve as
members of the convention. After giving extensive discussion to this matter the Commission, while
agreeing with the judgment of the Committee on Organization, nevertheless felt that the bylaw changes
had not been sufficiently clear and therefore the Commission on Constitutional Matters was compelled
to answer all three questions in the affirmative. This ruling was adopted by a vote of three to one, with
Mueller abstaining since he had been involved in the procedure.
159. AATS: Mueller reported briefly that he had been appointed to the special committee which is to
deal with the problem involved in the AATS action placing the seminaries on probation as far as their
accreditation is concerned.
160. Next Meeting Dates: September 22, 9 a.m. to September 23, 1:00 p.m.
161. Ironwood-Saxon, Wisconsin Call Document (Ag. 332, 332A to 332E): This dual parish had
submitted a call document to the Board of Assignments in which it obligated the assigned candidate to
subscribe to "A Statement" issued by Dr. Preus. In view of the fact that the Council of Presidents had
refused to honor this call, the congregations and their Counselor, R. W. Heikkinen, raised two questions:
1.

"Is the enclosed altered diploma of vocation unconstitutional? If so, why?"

2.

"Does a District President have the right to withhold a congregation's call from being
forwarded to the placement committee?"

After detailed discussion and examination of the resolution adopted by the Council of Presidents as well
as the request for a ruling on this same subject from District President Lloyd Goetz, the Commission
came to the following conclusions regarding the two questions:
1.

It is improper and unconstitutional to require that as a condition of a call a candidate
subscribe to and wholeheartedly endorse "A Statement" since this document is not part of
the confessional basis of the Synod set forth in Article II of its Constitution. (This
involves no judgment of the adequacy or inadequacy of "A Statement").