LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 7-8, 1973, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

cases the congregation may side with the pastor and feel that the District is being unduly harsh. In such a
case the congregation obviously would not suspend or depose its pastor. Neither the Synod nor the
District can suspend the man from his office as pastor of the congregation, only the congregation can do
that. It is obvious, however, that if the synodical suspension finally becomes expulsion, then the
congregation, after a decent interval of time, must make up its mind whether it wishes to depose its pastor
and continue its membership in the Synod or whether it wishes to retain its pastor and forfeit its membership in the Synod. The commission ratified this reply.
288. Affiliation with State Council of Churches (Ex. 443): President Fred Niedner had asked the
Secretary whether the affiliation of the Nebraska District with the state Council of Churches was
permissible. The Commission resolved to reply that it had no information on the nature of the Nebraska
Council, not having seen a copy of its constitution, but that it hopes that Exhibits F and G of the CTCR
report to the New Orleans convention would give the Nebraska District sufficient guidance to answer
this question.
289. Guidance in the Formation of Various District Commissions of Adjudication (Ag. 423, 425, 428,
429): The Southern, English, Northwest, and Oklahoma Districts had asked for guidance in restructuring
its District Commissions of Adjudication since they had failed to do so at the previous District
conventions. In each instance the Commission formally ratified the reply which Secretary Mueller had
sent with the understanding, however, that it might be better not to reveal this fact in the case of the
Oklahoma situation, since there might be further correspondence in this particular case as a result of the
fact that that District has only one holdover member of the District Board of Appeals.
290. CCM Request of CTCR for Study on Church Relations and Definitions of Theological Terms in the
Constitution (Ag. 397, 397A, to F): It was reported that no definite action had been received as yet from
the CTCR.
291. Opinion Re Doctrinal Resolutions (Ag. 445): Through Sommermeyer President Ressmeyer of the
Atlantic District OW asked the Commission whether a statement which he had drafted regarding the
status of doctrinal resolutions was constitutionally correct. The Commission decided to inform him that it
concludes that while one may well agree in general terms with the statement the Commission holds that
there are other dimensions that need to be added to the picture, and that the 1973 convention itself has a
number of overtures before it to define more precisely the status of doctrinal resolutions. The commission
expresses the hope that the New Orleans convention will make progress in this area which has been
troubling the church.
292. Protest Over Inclusion of Overtures in Workbook (Ag. 435): President Robert Riedel of the New
England District had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to rule whether a long list of
overtures concerning doctrinal matters should really be included in the Workbook as part of the agenda
of the convention. He personally was protesting the inclusion of these resolutions. The commission
concluded that the Synod has always considered such overtures. The important thing is what the Synod
decides to do with such overtures. That was the situation with reference to Resolution 9 of the San
Francisco convention to which President Riedel refers. The overtures were not improper but the
convention resolution was ultimately declared unconstitutional because the objectives of Resolution 9
could not be achieved through a simple resolution of the convention but required a constitutional
amendment, and steps to provide for such a constitutional amendment had not been taken.
293. Further Consideration of Acceptance of Overtures (Ag 446): This prompted Sommermeyer to ask
that the commission consider carefully Bylaw 1.27 c, because on the basis of the literal wording many
overtures could and perhaps should be excluded from convention consideration. It was generally felt that
this bylaw needed to be rewritten. But it was agreed that it would be better to place this on the docket