LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 22-23, 1972, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

with the Board for Higher Education, which is the proper channel for communication to
the seminaries and colleges.
It so happens that on May 25, 1972, more than two weeks before your convention, Dr. John
Tietjen requested and received an individual copy of the Commission's ruling of January 22-23,
1970. Since the seminary was represented in depth at your convention, we find it somewhat
surprising that this information was not shared with your floor committee and with your
convention.
We hope that this letter .will now supply the pertinent information.
186. Selective Fellowship (Ag. 375, 265, 290A): The Milwaukee convention had called upon the CTCR,
the CMMC, and the CCM to study the proposal regarding selective fellowship. An informal preliminary
meeting of some representatives was held recently to determine the procedures. This group felt that first
of all the CCM should be asked for "an opinion on the constitutionality of the kind of selective fellowship
practice mentioned in Resolution 3-11. Such an opinion could become a part of the report to the 1973
convention." This produced considerable discussion. It was finally resolved to inform Dr. Ralph A.
Bohlmann who had acted in behalf of the coordinating committee that the CCM is in no position to render a constitutional
question. Furthermore, the CCM would caution that any new fellowship approach might very well be in
conflict with the basic philosophy underlying various paragraphs of the Handbook (e.g., Constitution
Article VI, Bylaws 1.21, 3.07 e, 1.05, 1.09 b) and that if any new approach is contemplated the
Commission would advise that the CTCR and/or CMMC should recommend to the convention specific
amendments or additions to the Constitution and/or Bylaws. Within the Commission there is also a
division of opinion as to the extent to which the Commission should be involved in this study. The motion
was finally passed to inform the other two commissions that Mueller is available in the building when
needed although it should be remembered that he will not be speaking for the Commission and that the
Commission does not wish to be reported as a party to the discussion at this time.
187. Meeting Dates: It was resolved to meet December 14-15 (9 a.m.) in St. Louis or if Mueller must
attend a LCUSA meeting in New York on December 15-16 in that city.
188. Presidential Authority (Ag. 330, 340, etc.): The Board took up again the resolutions of the New York
and New Jersey Pastoral Conferences of the Atlantic District raising the two questions:
1.

Does the duty of the President of the Synod to supervise the doctrine ,and the administration
of the Synod as outlined in the Constitution, Article XI A and B, and Bylaw 2.27 give the
President the authority and power to alter, cancel, reverse, or nullify the decision of the
board of control of one of the Synod's colleges or seminaries or the decision of any other
board of the Synod?

2.

May the President by executive order cause an administrative employee of the Synod to
take an action which is in conflict with a decision of the Board to which the employee is
responsible?

The Commission had spent many hours in exploring this subject at a special previous meeting and had
done considerable reading and conversing on the subject with members throughout the Synod. At the last
meeting it had also asked Freise to try to pull together two proposed resolutions which had been
tentatively advanced. He now offered this revised document. After further revision by the members the
document was formally adopted. It is attached to the minutes. It was then also formally resolved to submit
the opinion to the Lutheran Witness for printing, as requested by the two conferences.