LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 13-14, 1976, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The opening prayer was spoken by Carl Eberhard who also conducted the chapel service at noon. The
minutes of the previous meeting stood approved as submitted.
94. Irvine (Ag. 927, 927A, 934, 934B-J): The Commission took up once again the questions raised by the
Southern California District Board of Directors and by District Vice-President Elmer Matthias regarding
the handling by the Board of Directors of the Synod of certain convention resolutions regarding
appropriations for Irvine, especially New Orleans Res. 6-31. Since the last meeting it had also given close
study to the position statement of the synodical Board of Directors and other information. It revised
slightly the draft which it had previously adopted. It ruled that the highest legislative authority of the
Synod is not the Board of Directors but the convention of the Synod, that the Synod at New Orleans did
indeed give a special priority to Christ College which takes precedence over priorities decided upon by
other groups, that undesignated funds in the 125th Anniversary Thankoffering were to be directed first of
all to Christ College Irvine, that the New Orleans resolution dealt with $2,000,000 rather than $3,000,000.
It also called attention to the fact that the Board of Directors' action should be understood in the light of
the fact that only twelve students had been enrolled by June 10, 1976. The complete text of the opinion is
attached to the minutes.
95. Uncertified Pastors and Delegate Elections (Ag. 1037): Dr. Preus had raised three questions: 1) May
pastors who have not been certified by the Synod be eligible for election as delegates to the Dallas
convention? 2) May such pastors participate in the election of any delegates to the Dallas convention? 3)
May they serve as advisory delegates or be involved in that process in any way? The Commission decided
to answer all three questions in the negative and to print this opinion in The Lutheran Witness.
96. Grunow re Jacobs and Preus (Ag. 1023): Among questions which Rev. William Grunow of San
Leandro, California had raised with reference to the AELC were two questions regarding the conduct of
District President Paul Jacobs and synodical President J.A. 0. Preus. The Commission decided to
postpone action on these two questions of Exhibit 1023.
97. Charges Against Congregation and Pastor re Offensive Conduct (Ag. 1009): Rev. A.J. Loeschmann of
San Antonio had asked by phone 1) whether pastor and congregation should be charged separately and 2)
what is meant by "persistent offensive conduct?" The Secretary had replied that it was his personal
opinion that the pastor and congregation in such a situation would need to be charged separately and that
the Commission had already held previously that the definition of "offensive conduct" depends upon the
individual case. The Commission decided to ratify this reply.
98. Florida-Georgia District Resolution re Eligibility and Ordination of Seminex Graduates (Ag. 1013):
First Church of Clearwater, Florida, David V. Dissen, pastor, had formally resolved to request the
Commission to rule on Resolution 5-09 of the 1976 Florida-Georgia District convention regarding the
placement, ordination, and commissioning of Seminex graduates. The Commission resolved to declare
that resolution null and void and also to call attention to the fact that the Commission had already ruled
the 1974 District resolution, which is quoted in the 1976 resolution, null and void and had reiterated that
previous ruling even after the personal appearance of the president and secretary of the Florida-Georgia
District before the Commission in 1974.
99. District Student Aid Funds and Seminex Students (Ag. 1020): Rev. M.W. Bergmann of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida had requested a ruling on the Florida-Georgia District convention Resolution 5-07
which provides for student aid to be extended also to students of Seminex. The Commission adopted the
following ruling:
It is assumed that student aid funds contributed by the members of the Synod should be extended
to students who intend to serve the Synod in a professional capacity. In the light of Anaheim