LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 10-11, 1992, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the Commission on Constitutional Matters relative to these questions was to be followed and would be
considered binding unless and until overturned by the next convention.
In brief review of the responses which had been provided, the Commission on Constitutional Matters
determined that it did not believe that its responses would require modification. It did note, however, that
in several areas, the response of the Commission on Appeals related to issues which were not involved in
the abstract questions as originally posed. It was stated that this fact did not seem to be recognized by the
Commission on Appeals who, in the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, should have
addressed additional questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters if they had such concerns.
Roland Hopmann and James Groh were asked to review the various documents which were involved, and
the responses which had been given and to draft a reply for consideration by the Commission on
Constitutional Matters as it responded to the directive of President Bohlmann.
65. Adjournment : Having completed its business, Commission was adjourned.
Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
January 10-11, 1992
66. Agenda: The Commission adopted the agenda as presented and indicated that in addition to the items
which were included time would be devoted to a decision regarding the response to be made to the
President with reference to the joint meeting of the Commission on Appeals and the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. In addition, attention was to be given to the recommendations coming from the
Task Force on Conflict Resolution as well as any other possible resolutions which might be proposed if
the recommendations of the Task Force on Conflict Resolution were not adopted. Many of the issues
which were to be considered by the Commission in its meeting involved ratification of responses which
had previously been given by the Secretary and which had been shared with the members of the
Commission.
67. Preus as Professor (Ag. 1909.A,B): The Commission had previously been asked by the Board of
Regents to determine whether the honorable retirement of Dr. Robert Preus as President of Concordia
Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, affected his position as professor at the seminary. The Commission felt
that in its previous response, it had clarified that issue indicating that honorable retirement as the
president did not mean retirement or removal from the position of professor. It was noted that Bylaw
6.53,b states that the president shall "ordinarily" not be associated with the last school which he served.
6.53,c intervenes with the option of serving under the BHES. 6.53,d which follows would seem to say
that while a former president should ordinarily not be associated with the last school which he served, he
may be, and in any case, if he is or if he joins the faculty of another school or elects to serve under the
BHES, he retains the rank of professor. He also retains the synodical housing and retirement provisions
for professors and administrators, whatever those may be. These statements had been shared with the
acting president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, and the Commission now ratified the
response which had been made.
68. Sixty-Day Limit of Bylaw 6.47 (Ag. 1914) : A letter had been received from a pastor requesting an
opinion regarding the beginning date for application of the 60-day period referred to in Bylaw 6.47,b. In a
personal opinion response to the pastor making the request, the Secretary had pointed out that the
Commission on Constitutional Matters might not be the appropriate group to make the determination on
the matter to which reference was made. The response to the question might depend on the nature of any