LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 11-12, 1976, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The Commission then decided to postpone further consideration of this matter until the next meeting to
give the members an opportunity to react to the tentative draft.
52. Authority to Appoint Acting President (Ag. 979, 979A): Rev. Robert Steinke of Massena, New York,
had inquired whether Dr. Preus had exceeded his authority in appointing Albert Bahr as acting president
of the Eastern District. In reply the Commission resolved to quote the following sentence from the
opinion which it had adopted regarding the seventh resolve of Anaheim Res. 5-02A: "If no successor
designated in the District bylaws is willing to serve as acting president, the President of the Synod has the
right to appoint an acting president in harmony with the provisions of Bylaw 2.29 c."
53. Buelow - Harnapp - Tietien - Gerken - Preus Case (Ag. 992): Rev. Raymond A. Mueller of Holy
Cross, St. Louis, had raised two questions. The questions and the answers adopted by the Commission,
with Klotz abstaining, are:
1. "Is the role of the District president or the President of Synod (or their representatives) to
decide the case or rather to determine whether there is sufficient substance to the case to
warrant turning it over to the Commission of Adjudication?"
Answer: It is the function of the District president to decide whether or not someone is to be
expelled. Before exercising expulsion he is obligated to suspend and to turn the matter over
to the Commission of Adjudication to see whether it agrees with the proposed action. The
synodical President may do this under certain circumstances.
2. "How long may the President of Synod hold such an appeal in abeyance without taking official
action on it one way or another?"
Answer: The term "reasonable time" may vary, but as the Commission has pointed out
previously, the time taken for consideration of such a request must stand the test of a later
appeal.
54. Steps in Malfeasance Charge (Ag. 1000, 1000A): First Vice-President W. A. Schroeder of the
Northwest District had inquired about the steps needed in such a case since a charge had been brought
against the District president of the Northwest District. The Secretary had replied (1000A) that a request
for removal must be addressed either to the convention of the Synod, or to the convention of that District,
or to the President of the Synod. In the first two instances this would take the form of an overture. He had
also pointed out that the Constitution speaks of "if circumstances require it." The circumstances must be
carefully evaluated. Furthermore, "Christian procedure" must be followed. These are matters which
cannot be outlined in a step by step fashion but the person or group bringing the request for removal must
be very careful that the cause which is given and the procedures which are followed will stand the test of
an appeal. In this connection the Secretary had referred Pastor Schroeder to the opinion of the
Commission on the removal of District presidents, Anaheim Workbook, pages 486 and 487, ratified by
the Anaheim convention. The Commission found no objection to this reply of the Secretary or to an
earlier one which had assumed request for steps involving removal on the basis of a charge which could
lead to expulsion from the Synod, and ratified the letters addressed by the Secretary.
55. Removal of President (Ag. 998): Rev. Mervin Kellerman of Richland, Washington, had asked
whether charges concerning President Jaech should be filed directly with Dr. Preus or must complainants
first proceed through the channels of the District first vice-president and the Board of Adjudication? Do
Bylaws 5.11, 5.13, and 5.15 apply in this situation? The Commission resolved that, assuming that Pastor
Kellerman had in mind only removal from office and not expulsion from Synod, then the same
procedures would be followed which had been indicated to First Vice-President W. A. Schroeder under