LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 3-11, 1975, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

District President may appoint assisting committees who are to report their findings and recommendations to him for his determination and action.
460. Other Reports: Members shared their experiences during the day. Particular attention was given to
the proposed unification of the Controller and Assistant Treasurer positions and to the proposed merger of
the English District into the geographical Districts of the Synod.
Saturday, July 5
461. Neunaber Correspondence (Ag. 745Y,Z); Koester Eligibility (Ag. 798); Ralph Boh_lmann Letter
(Ag. 809C)i Scherer Letter re Tiet'len Case (Ag. 842): The commission took note of this correspondence
and decided to remove these items from the docket.
462. Delegate Moving (Ag. 839): Rev. Paul Welk of Clifford, Ontario had asked whether a delegate who
is moving from the electorial circuit may continue to represent it. The'secretary had responded, quoting
the commission's ruling of May, 1974, to the effect that such a person is no longer eligible if he has
already been transferred, even though his installation has not yet taken place though authorized. The
commission ratified this response.
463. Ellermann -- ELIM Letter (Ag. 841): President John Ellermann of the Southern District had asked
for the commission's rulings on ELIM. The secretary had referred him to the commission's "Opinion on
Dissenting Groups" issued in 1969 and reissued last year, also to the ruling of more recent date that "the
question of membership in ELIM has not been decided by the Synod and therefore at the present time
delegates who hold membership in ELIM are eligible to be seated at this convention." The commission
ratified this reply.
464. Black Jack Information (Ag. 833A): The secretary had responded to Rev. Krueger's (Parkville,
Missouri) request for its recent ruling on the Black Jack matter, stating that this ruling was at the present
time the "property" of President Scherer and that it would not be wise to share this information until the
District President had had an opportunity to approach the congregation on the basis of the ruling.141a war
ri,',&e 1.
465. District President's Responsibility (Ag. 844): In answer to a layman's request for information
regarding a District President's responsibility to live up to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, the
secretary had responded in the customary way: That he was not eligible to ask for an opinion but in an
effort to be helpful had pointed him to opinions which the commission had already adopted and which
were published. The commission ratified this reply.
466. Role of Commission of Adjudication in Charges Against District President Across District Lines
(Ag. 843): A member of the synodical Commission of Adjudication had taken exception to the
commission's recent ruling regarding the removal of District Presidents from office, asserting that Bylaw
5.25e places this responsibility into the hands of the commission. He asked for a further elaboration and
justification of the commission's opinion in the light of that particular bylaw. The commission resolved to
inform him that it had reviewed its opinion and had decided to reaffirm it while at the same time
admitting that there are difficulties of interpretation here. The synodical Commission of Adjudication is
indeed involved when an appeal concerns persons who are not members of the same District (in the other
type of case the District Commission of Adjudication has jurisdiction). The CCM feels that perhaps
Pastor Elowsky is assuming that a Commission of Adjudication has the right to remove a president from
office or to expel members from the Synod. The commission does not agree. Bylaw 5.13 specifically
refers to the District Commission of Adjudication and the specific overrides the general. In such a case
point "e" is eliminated from consideration.