LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 24-25, 1976, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

whether it is to be classified under "any other theological school not affiliated with The Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod."
5.

Does a relationship exist under Bylaw 4.67 between the Synod and "candidates of theology who
are members of an affiliated church body" which does not exist between the Synod and
candidates of theology who are members of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod who
graduated from Concordia Seminary in Exile?
Answer: Until the Anaheim convention it was impossible for a person who was a member of the
Missouri Synod to make use of the colloquy procedures for the pastoral ministry except for the
LCMS parochial school teachers who wished to become clergymen. As indicated above, already
the introduction of colloquy procedures for such teachers desiring to become clergymen
indicated that not only Constitution Article VI, 6 is involved in colloquy procedures but also
Article III, 3. The Anaheim convention deliberately took a step to permit also Seminex students
to have at least a limited participation in the privileges of the colloquy program.

165. Dr. Milton Carpenter's Questions Re Executive Committee's Interpretation of
Irvine Opinion (Ag. 1103): Dr. Carpenter had shared with the Commission the following resolution
adopted by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Synod:
WHEREAS, The CCM issued an opinion on August 13, 1976 with respect to appropriations for
Irvine; and
WHEREAS, The aforesaid opinion says that certain monies "should have been directed first of
all to Christ College, Irvine," which the Executive Committee, upon study and reflection on the
opinion in its entirety, understands to be cautionary only and as having no present affect on
Thankoffering funds which have heretofore been either granted or allocated; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Executive Committee rescind its action taken August 18, 1976 with respect
to a freeze on the expenditure of Thankoffering funds heretofore allocated but not spent.
In the light of that resolution Treasurer Milton Carpenter asked three questions of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. The answers adopted by the Commission are indicated below:
1.

Is the Executive Committee interpretation of the Commission on Constitutional Matters' opinion
as stated above in the second "whereas" and the "resolved" proper? If not, what is the proper
interpretation?
Answer: Yes, although the word "cautionary" is rather mild.

2.

May requests presently being procured through boards and commissions be considered by the
Board of Directors and funded from the $773,000 of Thankoffering funds available for
allocation prior to the Commission on Constitutional Matters' opinion of August 13?
Answer: Monies which are not designated by the donors for other purposes and have not yet
been allocated for other purposes by the Board of Directors must be applied first of all to Irvine
until the goal of the resolution is achieved.

3.

Does the Commission on Constitutional Matters' August 13 Irvine opinion apply only to those
funds received after the August 13 opinion date?