LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 24-25, 1976, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

160. New Jersey District Request for Delay (Ag. 1101): The Board of Directors of this District had asked
for a delay at least to the time of the convention. The Commission resolved that this day's action covers
this request.
161. E.C. Weber Request for Pastoral Care (Ag. 1104): Vice-President Weber had asked for some type of
delay in order to give more opportunity for pastoral care. The Commission resolved that its action of that
day satisfied this request.
162. Eligibility of AELC Members for Election to Office (Ag. 1108): The Committee for Convention
Nominations, meeting at this time, had inquired through Chairman August Mennicke whether those who
have joined the AELC or have expressed intentions in that direction are eligible for nomination to
synodical office. The Commission ruled that in view of its action on this day such people are indeed at
this time still eligible.
163. Candidates as Advisory Members (Ag. 1078): The Commission ratified the reply of the Secretary to
Mr. Donald L. Kell of the Michigan District that teacher candidates are indeed advisory members of the
Synod and are therefore eligible to participate in the advisory delegate process.
164. Colloquy Procedures and Seminex Graduate (Ag. 1096): Grace Congregation of River Forest,
Illinois, which has engaged a Seminex graduate as an assistant pastor, disputed the applicability of
colloquy regulations to Seminex graduates and had asked the Commission to answer directly five qpecific
questions. The questions and the answers decided upon by the Commission are:
1.

Has the basic premise governing the existence and function of the Colloquy Board cited in
Constitution Article VI, 6 and incorporated in earlier Bylaws now been changed by 1975
Anaheim Bylaw amendments?
Answer: Especially since the time when the Synod decided to make colloquy procedures
available to LCMS parochial school teachers who wished to become clergymen, it is clear that
the colloquy procedures in the Bylaws fall not only under Constitution Article VI, 6 but also
under Article III, 3.

2.

Are the 1975 Anaheim Bylaw amendments referred to in question #1 in conflict with Article VI,
6 of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional?
Answer: No. See answer to #1 above.

3.

In reference to Bylaw 4.55, is it expected of a Seminex graduate who requests the colloquy that
he "has severed connection or is in the process of severing connection" with the seminary that
certified him (Seminex) and with the organization that supported him (ELIM)?
Answer: No, since neither Seminex nor ELIM has as yet been declared a church body.

4.

When Resolution 6-02 of the Anaheim convention declares that Concordia Seminary in Exile
"will be regarded as any other theological school not affiliated with The Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod," does that statement mean that the relationship will be as though no
state of fellowship exists?
Answer: The question of fellowship is not at issue here. The question is simply whether Seminex
is an institution owned and operated and directed by The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod or