LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 6, 1988, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

1. Can congregations which operate without an approved constitution participate in the election
of circuit delegates to the synodical convention?
2. Are the members and clergy of congregations which operate without approved constitutions
eligible for nomination and election to circuit, district and synodical offices?
3. In light of the Constitution and Bylaws, should congregations which operate without
approved constitutions be considered according to 2.23 a, that is as having restricted status?
The Secretary had provided a personal response which stated that the matter hinged on the question of
"membership" and "approved constitution." It was pointed out that it would appear to be impossible for a
congregation to be a member of the Synod if its constitution and bylaws were not approved. If they had
been and if the congregation was operating under that constitution approved by the district when it was
received into membership, it would apparently have full membership rights, including the right of
participation in the election of circuit delegates to a synodical convention, as well as eligibility of its
members and clergy for nomination. In view of this, the answer to the questions would be "No," "No" and
"Yes, by action of the district president." A congregation becomes a member when its constitution and
bylaws are approved and the congregation is received into membership of the Synod through the district.
If a congregation wishes to alter its constitution and bylaws, it cannot operate under the altered
regulations until the proposed changes have been recommended for approval by the District Committee
on Constitutional Matters and have been approved by the District Board of Directors. If they do so, they
are not operating under an approved constitution and the answers given would apply.
It was also pointed out that a response to the questions posed would involve the meaning of the terms,
"persist in an offensive conduct," and "previous futile admonition." If a congregation seeks to alter its
constitution by making an effort to meet requirements which may have been set down by the District
Constitution Committee, then the question arises as to whether the admonition offered has been futile and
whether the offensive conduct is persistent. This would undoubtedly involve a matter of judgment.
Ultimately the answer to the questions would depend on the specific situation involved although the
governing principles are clear.
The Commission ratified the response which had been provided by the Secretary.
109. Joint Meeting of Commission on Constitutional Matters and Commission on Appeals : In a
lengthy meeting between the Commission on Constitutional Matters and Commission on Appeals, general
discussion revolved around the questions of "forum shopping," requests for Commission on
Constitutional Matters opinions privately submitted, and the role of legal counsel for the Synod. The
Commission on Appeals expressed its opinion that the term jurisdiction in Bylaw 8.37 is to be broadly
interpreted and therefore it had acted properly in responding to the Oklahoma District Commission on
Adjudication when it asked whether it had jurisdiction in the case in which the district president had not
brought charges against a pastor as had been requested by another member of the district. It also appealed
to Bylaw 8.69 regarding the finality of decisions, contending that the Commission on Constitutional
Matters had perhaps not acted properly in responding to another of requests from the same Commission
and through its interpretation had overturned the decision of the majority opinion of the Commission on
Appeals in the same case. It was pointed out, however, that a matter of interpretation of the Bylaws was
involved and that the Commission on Appeals had provided an interpretation of the word "jurisdiction" in
arriving at its decision. The Bylaws, however, make it abundantly clear that interpretation is the
responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, whose decisions are final unless and until
overturned by a convention of the Synod. In the ensuing discussion, it became clear that the commissions