LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 21, 1986, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Constitutions on which opinions had been requested. The Chairman of the Nebraska Constitution
Committee had been informed of the views of the Commission and no further correspondence on the
matter had been received. This matter is to be considered closed and the item removed from the agenda.
Commission members may, however, wish to retain correspondence relating to the matter.
205. Pruefer Matter (Ag. 1711) : The Commission had carried on considerable correspondence with
Rev. Pruefer regarding the constitutionality of the calling of a colliquized pastor to a congregation in
Ontario. No further correspondence has been received and the matter may be considered closed. This item
should also be removed from the agenda.
206. Authority of the Commission on Appeals (Ag. 1771) : Apparently because of difficulties in the
congregation, some members of Redeemer Lutheran Church of Burnsville, Minnesota, have separated
from the congregation and formed a congregation called Messiah Lutheran Church. The circuit counselor
and the district president had been involved in attempting to bring about a solution to the matter.
Redeemer Lutheran Church believed that the actions of the circuit counselor and district president were
inappropriate and asked that they be suspended from their positions. They wished to present the matter to
the District Board of Directors for consideration. The District Board of Directors apparently declined to
become involved in the matter and the district president requested the District Commission on
Adjudication to adjudicate it. Because Redeemer Lutheran Church felt that this was the wrong procedure,
A wrote to the Chairman of the Commission on Appeals requesting an opinion regarding the proper
procedure to be followed. Although acknowledging that the proper group to which the question should be
presented was the Commission on Constitutional Matters, the Chairman of the Commission on Appeals
indicated that the proper procedure was for the Board of Directors of the district to authorize the first
vice-president to function and carry out an investigation.
As the result of these actions, President Cloeter of the Minnesota South District had presented two
questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters:
“l. Does the Commission on Appeals or its Chairman have the authority to give such opinions in
view of Bylaw 8.39 which states that this Commission has jurisdiction only in cases of appeal
from decisions of Commissions on Adjudication?
2. Does Bylaw 8.41, f, apply in this case since this is not a matter of suspension or expulsion,
but ours is only a request that the Commission on Adjudication render a judgment in the
charges that have been brought against us?
Summarizing the two questions: Did the Chairman of the Commission on Appeals have any
authority to respond to the congregation in question with an opinion? Secondly, as to the content
of his opinion does it apply to the case at hand and thus have validity?"
President Bohlmann had also written to the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding this issue
asking whether Bylaw 8.41, f, would apply to the situation in which the congregation finds itself.
After thorough discussion, the Commission decided to reply in response to these matters in the following
manner:
In response to the first question as to whether the Commission on Appeals has the authority to
offer an opinion in a matter such as this, the answer is simply, "No." The Handbook is quite clear
when it states in Bylaw 8.39 that "the Commission on Appeals shall handle only appeals of
decisions of Commissions on Adjudication." It is the responsibility of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters to "interpret the Synod's Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions upon a