LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 8−9, 1974, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

33. Other Roster Questions (Ag. 511): President Richard L. Schlecht, secretary of the Council of
Presidents, had relayed a formal request from the November meeting of the Council for rulings on three
questions:
1.

Does Bylaw 4.47a require the District president to present every application after three years
for a continuation of the crm status to the Council of Presidents, or can the District president
remove a person from the clergy roster without Council action?

2.

Does a person removed from crm status by the District president prior to the three year limit
have the right of appeal? If so, to whom?

3.

Does a person removed from a crm status after a three year period have the right of appeal?

The Commission decided upon the following replies:
1.

The Commission rules that a District president may remove an individual at any time from
the roster, but after three years of cm status, granted by the District president, the District
president cannot retain the individual on the roster without action of the Council of
Presidents.

2. & 3. The CCM finds no specific provision in the Handbook for an appeal from the decision of a
District president in the case cited, except the general appeals procedures. The CCM suggests
that the Council of Presidents recommend thru proper channels a specific and simplified
appeals procedure for such instances for consideration by the 1975 convention.
34. Boehne Letter Re Roster Bylaw (Ag. 478A): An English District pastor, H. Paul Boehne, had taken
exception to the action of the English District Board of Directors asking the Council of Presidents to rule
on the application of the new roster bylaws. He had inquired about the proper procedure. The Secretary
had replied under date of October 22 to the effect that the Council of Presidents does not have the
authority to clarify the sense of bylaw changes and that the interpretation of the bylaws is indeed the
responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The Commission ratified this reply.
35. Victor Albers Questions (Ag. 466): Already on August 20, 1973 Rev. Victor G. Albers of New York
had written a letter of deep concern with many questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. At
this time the Commission approved a proposed reply (attached to the minutes). The correspondence has
reference to actions taken by the convention especially in regard to Concordia Seminary and the adoption
of doctrinal resolutions.
36. River Forest Faculty Allegation of Inconsistency (Ag. 490): The Commission ratified the letter which
the Secretary had sent when the River Forest faculty through M.L. Radtke charged the Commission with
inconsistency between the case involving the election of a new River Forest president and the disciplinary
case of Dr. Hugo Gehrke. Since no further reply was received from the faculty, the Commission assumes
that the reply of the Secretary was satisfactory.
37. CTCR Request Re Marriage Ceremonies (Ag. 488): The CTCR had asked: "Does Article VII include
the matters discussed in A Statement on Lutheran - Non-Lutheran Marriage Ceremonies under deference
rights of a congregation, because it finds it inexpedient to follow the synodical guidelines or rules?" Dr.
John Klotz had prepared an answer to this question. After some discussion it was decided to postpone
further consideration until the next meeting.