LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 6-7, 1974, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

deposed pastor in the District to the extent of his previous salary and pension plan. The Commission decided to reply as follows:
1.

It appears to us that your main concern deals with the support of a deposed pastor. The
Commission is not able to judge since it does not have all the facts at its disposal. However,
the Commission is enclosing an opinion which was rendered in another case and which may
possibly answer your concern. (See Minutes 296)

2.

Your question regarding the eligibility of the District chairman of ELIM to serve as Secretary
of Missions in your District is one which you may wish to refer to your District President and
to review in the light of Section V of the Handbook and the Commission's opinion on dissident
groups and activities (Milwaukee Workbook, page 243).

331. Questions re ELIM and Procedures Against District Presidents (Ag 704): Rev. John Klemp of
Wentworth, South Dakota had asked what the mode of action is toward ELIM brethren who let political
activity interfere with their ministry to their congregation and also what process is to be followed by
congregations when the District President has installed or commissioned persons unauthorized by the
Synod. The Commission resolved to advise him to refer his first concern to his District President and to
inform him that the second concern is under study by the Commission at the present time.
332. Ohio District Resolution re Support of Suspended or Deposed District Officers (Ag. 707): Rev. Carl
E. Nelson had asked the Commission to rule on the constitutionality of Ohio District convention
Resolution 136, adopted June 26, 1974, which states: "Resolved, that the Ohio District authorize the
Board of Directors to provide financial and other necessary support for the District President and other
District officials in the event that any attempt is made to suspend them or remove them from office for
actions or decisions arising :out of the present controversy." After some discussion the Commission
formulated the following statement which is to be taken under consideration until the next meeting when
it should receive action:
1.

In the church one would expect mercy to be shown in cases of financial need.

2.

In the resolved it is not clear what "financial and other necessary support" is involved. Does it
involve housing? Living expenses? Attorney's fees? Court costs?

3.

Expenditure of District funds to provide financial and other support for District officials in the
event an attempt is made to remove them from office would be made at the peril of the officers
and directors who so expend such funds.

4.

In the event that a court of law would determine that the said District official(s) should be
suspended, then the persons who did expend funds in the defense of such person(s) very likely
would be personally liable for the amount of District funds expended.

333. New Orleans Resolution 1-06 (Ag. 710): Rev. Charles T. Piazza and Rev. Erno L. Szedlak of
Plymouth, Indiana have asked whether Resolve #6 of Resolution 1-06 of the New Orleans convention is
constitutional. It reads: "6. Resolved, that the members of the Board for Missions refrain from involving
themselves in the supervision and counseling of missionaries and sister churches which is properly the
function of the Mission staff." The Commission resolved to answer as follows:
The Commission interprets Resolve #6 to mean that individual members of the Board should not
supervise or counsel missionaries and sister churches but that this is a prerogative of the Board