LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 11-12, 1975, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Answer:

4.

News releases and statements from Dr. Tietjen and others have already placed into the public
domain a considerable body of information on the procedures, charges, and actions in the Tietjen
case. Would the public repetition of such information at the present time, perhaps arranged in
one report for the sake of convenience, be regarded as objectionable "publicity"?
Answer:

5.

As far as the Board of Control's responsibilities are concerned, the Commission's
answer is the same as in #2 above.

While statements made by Dr. Tietjen and others "have already been placed into the
public domain," the circulation of such statements by the Board of Control at this
time would be inappropriate under Bylaw 5.13 j.

The CCM opinion permits the Board to announce the basis of its action. May the Board's
statement of its "basis" include such matters as a chronological and explanatory account of the
procedures followed, the charges, the opinion of the CTCR, and the findings of the Faculty
Hearings Committee? If not, what may properly be considered a statement of the "basis" for the
Board's action?
Answer:

The Commission concludes that the Board of Control may list simply the findings
of the Board on the basis of which the Board of Control has removed Dr. Tietjen
from office.

407. Seminex Graduate as Lay Delegate (Ag. 817): Counselor Victor Willmann of the South Dakota
District had objected vehemently to the Commission's ruling to the effect that a Seminex graduate serving
in a ministerial way in the circuit could not serve as a lay delegate from that circuit. After reviewing his
letter the Commission decided to inform him that it realizes that there are difficult questions involved but
that the Commission remains with its previous decision.
408. Manteca and San Bruno (Ag. 783-A,B,C,D, 813): As a result of ongoing correspondence with
President Jacobs, Mr. Hough, and Counselor Taddey, the Commission resolved upon the following
opinion. If there still are two congregations in Manteca, an LCMS pastor may serve also a non-LCMS
congregation provided that that congregation is willing to be served on the basis of the stipulations which
apply even to the serving of nonLutheran congregations as listed in Bylaw 4.05. It is understood that the
LCMS would exercise the ecclesiastical supervision and not another church body. Furthermore, the
Commission holds that an LCMS congregation cannot be served by an LCA pastor.
409. Emeriti Pastors as Voting Delegates at District Conventions (Ag. 783-D, 813): President Jacobs had
indicated that his California-Nevada convention had indeed extended voting privileges to emeriti pastors
and that the District was memorializing the Synod to do the same throughout the Synod. The Commission
reiterated its previous ruling that voting pastors can be only those who have received a regular call from
the congregation and have been installed upon authorization of the District President. President Jacobs is
to be reminded that the men involved who in his own words serve on a full-time basis could well lose
their retirement benefits since the Concordia Plans have consistently ruled that an individual cannot be
both retired and also a full-time worker.
410. Removal of Pastor (Ag. 807): Salem congregation of Black Jack, Missouri had asked whether a
congregation could abolish the office of one of its pastors even if it be that of head pastor. The
Commission had already replied to the question raised by President Herman Scherer by stating that this is
a matter which ought to be taken to the CTCR. The Commission resolved to reply along the following
lines: As we have indicated to President Scherer, the Commission feels that this question should be
considered by the CTCR, and the Commission is still of that persuasion. If the opinion of the CTCR is to