LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 28-29, 1974, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

4.

Bylaw 4.04 B, 1 states: "In electoral circuits consisting of two counseling circuits, the
pastoral delegate shall be chosen from one circuit, and the lay delegate shall be chosen from
the other." This is not in harmony with the basic provisions of the bylaws. Especially since
these circuits are meeting at the time of the District convention it should be relatively easy
for the two circuits to meet jointly. Less objectionable would be to change "shall" to "may
by unanimous consent."

185. Southern Illinois District Tentative Bylaws (Ag. 625): The Secretary had given a detailed analysis of
the tentative bylaws adopted by the Southern Illinois District convention. The Commission decided to
hold the matter in abeyance until copies are available for all members of the Commission.
186. Implementation of Irvine Resolution (Ag. 591, 591-A, 591-B): Rev. E. H. Schroeder of Long Beach,
California had asked the Commission whether the Board of Directors was not obligated to carry out the
resolutions of the synodical convention with respect to Irvine. The Commission agreed that this assertion
is technically correct, that the Board of Directors is subject to the direction of a convention, which in
Bylaw 1.21 is referred to as the highest legislative authority in the Synod. It was felt however that Pastor
Schroeder should be informed that the Board of Directors was prompted not only by financial
considerations but also by the fact that the same convention which had authorized the borrowing of funds
for the construction of Irvine had also called for a major study of the whole system of higher education in
the Synod. Finally, however, it was decided to discuss this unofficial and tentative opinion with legal
counsel Draheim to determine whether the Board of Directors must or can be held legally responsible.
Perhaps the Board of Control could be persuaded to adopt a resolution acceding to the Board of Directors
decision to delay implementation. In the meantime the Commission decided to inform Pastor Schroeder
simply that his request for a ruling was under active consideration.
187. "Accepts Without Reservation" (Ag. 643): Rev. David A. Caspersen of Shelton, Nebraska had asked
for an interpretation of the phrase in Article II: "accepts without reservation." The Commission resolved
to suggest to Pastor Caspersen that he approach the CTCR with his question.
188. Board of Control Membership, Selma (Ag. 646): A difficulty has developed regarding the exact
membership of the Board of Control of Selma. Secretary A. Dominick had written to the Secretary
informing him that one of the members had now resigned and that perhaps therefore the person whose
status was in doubt could simply continue as a member of the board. The Commission decided to hold
this matter to enable the Secretary to check the details out in greater detail since the letter had been received only that morning and had not been addressed to the Commission.
189. San Francisco Night Ministry (Ag. 385, 385-A, 385-B): Quite some time ago Rev. Wm. P. Grunow
of San Leandro, California had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to reconsider its earlier
opinion that the San Francisco Night Ministry was not unconstitutional. After having had this matter on
the docket for a long time and awaiting further guidance from the CTCR, the Commission now decided
on the following answer:
Since such a ministry is not simply a social ministry as originally understood by the Commission
on Constitutional Matters but admittedly a Gospel ministry which is carried on in association with
church bodies with which the Synod is not in fellowship, and has indeed been administered by a
clergyman of such a denomination, therefore the Commission on Constitutional Matters rules that
such a ministry is in conflict with Article VI, 2, c, and Bylaws 1.21 and 3.07, a and is therefore
judged to be unconstitutional.