LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 9-10, 1987, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

contained no provision describing those positions which women could not hold. It believed that this
provision should be included. Furthermore, while it approved the changes to "convener" and "assistant
convener" on a tentative basis, it withheld final approval until after having received an opinion from the
Commission on Constitutional Matters.
Calvary Congregation had asked the following questions:
1) After a congregation's constitution has been approved by the district CCM and ratified by the
district in convention, is it appropriate for the District CCM to require additions or changes
thereafter?
2) Do the approved changes noted in the October 29 letter from the Rev. Robert A. Schmidt
properly assure that the functioning of our committees and offices does not violate the
synodical understanding of either the "orders of creation" or the "functioning of the' pastoral
office?"
Rev. Schmidt, secretary of the South Wisconsin District Committee on Constitutional
Matters had raised the question, "What is meant by administration, the official only, or
also those assisting at Holy Communion as well?"
In response to the questions raised, the Commission decided to respond that the position of the Synod in
the matter of offices which may be held by women is very clear and has been supported as late as July,
1986. As the word Synod indicates, members are "on the same road together," and have a duty to honor
and uphold the resolutions of the Synod.
The Secretary was asked to include in his response to both Calvary Lutheran Congregation and to Pastor
Schmidt statements on this matter which were included in letters to Grimm and Hessler referred to above
and which had been ratified.
In response to specific questions from Calvary, the Commission stated that it is appropriate for the
District Constitution Committee to require additions or changes in a constitution which has already been
approved if errors are discovered. It noted that when error is discovered, it is contrary to all logic and
Christian expectation to suggest that it not be corrected.
The Commission further noted that it is not necessary to use the exact wording suggested by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding offices which women may not hold in a congregation. If
it is not included, the substance of that statement should be included and, in any event, the practice
reflected in that statement should be followed. No statement on paper can guarantee that will occur. What
is involved, is not the use of certain "magic words."
As has been indicated in other correspondence, specifically that of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relationships, the matter of the function of an office is of prime importance. Ordinarily, a
president is considered as exercising authority. If a "convener" carries out the same functions as the
president, women, on the basis of the position presently held by the Synod, would be ineligible to hold
that office. The issue, as stated, is the function of the office.
Accordingly, it is the view of the Commission that the District Constitution Committee may wish to
reconsider its tentative approval of the proposed changes to the constitution contained in the letter of
October 29, 1986. Obviously, the Commission is not in a position to respond fully to Pastor Bruch's
second question without an understanding of the entire context of the constitution. This, however, is an
appropriate subject for consideration and determination by the District Commission in the first instance