LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 26-27, 1986, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

5. Appeals Procedures (Ag. 1761, B) : Paul Welk, a former pastor in the Alberta-British-Columbia
District, had accused the Commission on Constitutional Matters of prejudice and complicity with officials
of the district and the Synod in providing their response to his request for review of procedures which had
been followed and which resulted in his removal from the roster of the Synod. Chairman Schnelz shared
the response which he had made to Paul Welk as well as the response which he had received in return
from him.
6. Authority of Commission on Appeals (Ag. 1771, A) : The Commission took note of the fact that
Messiah Lutheran Church, Apple Valley, Minnesota, had been received into the membership of The
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod at the synodical convention in Indianapolis. The matter was of interest
to the Commission since it had on a previous occasion received a request from the Minnesota South
District President regarding the constitutionality of actions of Redeemer Lutheran Church, Burnsville,
Minnesota, which had addressed questions to the Commission on Appeals rather than the Commission on
Constitutional Matters as should properly have been done. Since the convention, which is the final
authority, has now acted, any questions involving the formation of Messiah Lutheran Church no longer
appeared to be relevant.
7. Voting Rights of Missionary-at-Large (Ag. 1776) : In a letter to the Secretary requesting an official
opinion, the question had been asked whether a missionary-at-large engaged by a district was eligible to
vote at a district convention. The Commission agreed with the response of the Secretary which stated that
a missionary-at-large was not eligible to vote since such a person is an advisory member of the Synod.
8. Eligibility for Membership on Boards and Commissions - Tenure (Ag. 1782, 1789) : Dr. Nafzger
had approached the board with a request for a ruling regarding the eligibility of a member of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations for reappointment to the Commission. He had originally
been appointed in April of 1978 to complete a four-year term ending December 31, 1979. He was
subsequently reappointed by the Council of Presidents for one four-year term and one three-year term
which expires on December 31, 1986. The Secretary had raised similar questions since the convention
had determined that incumbents whose years of service would exceed the number of years of eligibility if
re-elected were not eligible for nomination.
After reviewing the bylaws, the Commission responded as follows:
It is the ruling of the Commission that under Bylaw 2.57 terms are dealt with in terms of years. In
2.59 the years are incidentally repeated as modifiers but the ultimate decision of length of tenure
is couched in terms of tenure not in terms of years. Therefore, then, any individual may be
eligible for a successive appointed term provided that the original appointment, if for less than for
a full term, was not for a period of more than one-half of said term.
9. Convention Nominations Committee Vacancy (Ag. 1783) : A letter had been received from a
member of the Convention Nominations Committee elected at the synodical convention asking if a
member of the committee would be disqualified if he moved to another district, if another member of the
committee had already been elected from the district to which he moved. Questions were also raised
regarding the filling of any vacancies which might occur on the Convention Nominations Committee.
In response, the Commission responded that a member of the committee would not be disqualified if
moving to a district which was also the district of another committee member. The matter of eligibility
hinges on election, not location during the period of service on the committee .
Regarding the filling of vacancies on the Committee for Convention Nominations, the Commission noted
that the nature of this matter is unprecedented and the Synod did not take into account the possibility of