LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 29-30, 1989, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

"May a congregation of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod vote not to use an agenda, hymnbook, and
catechism as part of their congregational polity and still be a member in good standing in the Synod?"
In response, the Commission agreed that the request exceeded the usual functions of the Commission
which does provide interpretations, but ordinarily does not give expositions, of the Constitution of the
Synod. It further agreed that the formal documents by those names, or informal equivalents therefore, are
unavoidable in a worshiping-teaching congregation. Whether formal or informal, official documents of
the Synod or of some other origin, they must be doctrinally pure. The matter of doctrinal purity is the real
thrust of the constitutional statement.
3. Eligibility-Board of Regents (Ag. 1867) : Dr. Ralph Reinke, president of Concordia College, Seward,
had requested an interpretation of Bylaw 6.01,b,3, which provides that the Board of Regents is to elect
two laypersons. One of two laypersons elected to the Board of Regents of Concordia, Seward, had entered
Concordia Seminary and was in training to become an ordained minister. The question was whether or
not he was still eligible to serve as a layperson on the Board of Regents.
The Commission ratified the response of the Secretary which had indicated that the spirit of the bylaw
could suggest that the person in question should no longer serve as a lay member of the Board of Regents.
However, the letter of the law would also allow continued service until there is a change in status. It must
be recognized that the person might never complete the course of studies, be ordained, and placed on the
clergy roster. The Commission concurred that until the status of the person in question actually changes to
either ordained or commissioned minister, it remains that of layperson, in which category he was
originally elected.
4. Constitutionality of Convention Action (Ag. 1868) : The Reverend Roger E. Disbro had asked the
Commission on Constitutional Matters to determine the constitutionality of action taken by the recent
synodical convention on a matter in which he had presented a formal dissent to the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations in conformity with Bylaw 2.39,c. In effect, it was the opinion of Rev.
Disbro that the CTCR was required to deal with his dissent and demonstrate to his satisfaction that the
position it had taken in its documents on the position of women in the church was scriptural and
confessional before that matter could be brought before the convention.
The Commission replied that it had considered his view carefully and after having done so finds nothing
in Bylaw 2.39,c, which supports the contention that a formal expression of dissent to the Commission on
Theology and Church Relations acts as a bar to synodical action in convention. As stated, the bylaw
simply requires that the dissent be brought to the CTCR before taking the overture to the Synod in
convention relative to that matter. It does not prevent the convention from acting.
5. Election of Seminary Faculty Members (1869) : Dr. Karl Barth, president of Concordia Seminary,
St. Louis, had addressed the Commission on Constitutional Matters, expressing a concern regarding the
removal of certain items from the Bylaws of the Synod and incorporating them in policy manuals of the
Board for Higher Education Services and the seminaries. It was his belief that the present situation causes
confusion, since the Board of Regents is not privy to the policy manual of the BHES. It was the belief of
the Board of Regents of the seminary that it might not be wise to have a general rubric applied to a
specific function when another specific function, namely, prior approval is mandated in that paragraph.
Clarification by the Commission on Constitutional Matters on the deletion from the Bylaws of the Synod
was also requested.
In a personal response, the Secretary had noted that there are differences of opinion regarding what
should or should not be contained in Bylaws. It was noted that the approach taken more recently has been
to reduce bylaws as much as possible and to have them spell out the responsibility of, boards, with the