LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 9-10, 1987, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

and until such a determination is made, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to review that
language.
35. Legal Relationships -Review of Documents of Synodical Entities (Ag. 1781) : At its last meeting,
the Commission had asked for a clarification of the request from the Board of Directors that the
Commission examine the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of all synodical entities to determine that
they were in harmony with new Chapter I of the Handbook which describes relationships within and
through the Synod. Dr. Schuelke, executive director of the Board of Directors, had provided that
clarification and had suggested that the Commission might meet with Philip Draheim in order to secure
further information on this matter. In response, the Commission decided to answer as follows:
The Commission has met and reviewed your letter relative to the action taken in the 1986
convention, item 11, page 173 of the Proceedings. In light of the breadth and generality of the
task which has been set before the Commission, the invitation to look to Mr. Draheim for
elaboration and guidance "on the consequences that can come from misstatements about
relationships," is most warmly and heartily welcome. We prefer, however, to receive the
comments of Mr. Draheim's explanation in written form rather than in an informal conference
with regard to what it is in particular we should be looking for and why.
It is the feeling of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the matters suggested by you
are far beyond the scope and charge of the Commission as contained in the Bylaws. Quite
candidly, it is the feeling of the Commission that proper procedure is for the Secretary of the
Synod to contact each legal entity as suggested, advising them of the existence of the
subparagraph 11 and asking them to review their documents and bring them into conformity with
the Bylaws of the Synod. If during their review, they discover that amendments are necessary,
these entities will, of course, be required, pursuant to 2.533 f to submit them to the CCM for
review. As that provision indicates, it is the responsibility of the CCM to "examine in advance the
Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws or regulations of each synodical entity . . . “
36. Associate Congregation Membership (Ag. 1795) : A request had been received regarding an
opinion related to the holding of associate membership in congregations by persons who live in an area
for an extended period of time but wish to retain their membership in another congregation. The question
had arisen in relation to congregations located near military installations. The issue, it was noted, had
wider significance because of so-called "snow birds" who maintain a primary residence in the northern
area of the United States but spend four to six months at a secondary home in southern sections of the
country. The Secretary had provided a response which was shared with the Commission.
During the discussion, the Commission indicated its view that the Synod had never recognized associate
membership in congregations but had recognized guest memberships. It further suggested that the
congregation should prepare bylaws which cover the matter and present those bylaws to a District
Committee on Constitutional Matters for their review and opinion. It also noted that while the Bylaws do
not address this matter, neither does the polity of the Synod address anything such as associate
membership. In any situation such as this, the question of responsibility for ministering to the spiritual
needs of "guest members" over a longer period of time needs to be addressed.
37. Faculty Hearings Procedure (Ag. 1778,A,B,C) : In a previous meeting, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters had noted that procedures followed in the hearing of charges brought against a
faculty member at Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, had been deficient. In view of that
decision, the Board of Regents had made a decision to begin-the hearings procedure over again and had
so notified the parties involved. The faculty member, Dr. Alvin Schmidt, against whom the charges had
been brought, had raised three questions: