LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 13, 1992, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Resolved That the District Constitution Committee consider amending Bylaw 1.01,d to read: "Only those
congregations that have paid their convention registration fee by the opening of the convention shall have
their delegates seated."
The convention recognized that a matter of constitutionality might be involved and therefore assigned the
resolution to the District Board of Directors for study. The District Board of Directors was now asking the
Commission on Constitutional Matters to respond to the question, "Is the concept of requiring payment of
the assessment before the delegates are seated constitutional?"
In responding to this question, the Commission notes that Bylaw 4.23 accrediting of delegates deals with
the accreditation of such delegates at the district convention. It states, "The delegates of a voting
congregation shall stand accredited and entitled to vote upon presenting to the Secretary at the opening of
the convention the proper credentials provided by the District Secretary and signed by two of the
congregation's officers." A similar procedure is referred to with regard to certification of voting and
advisory delegates at the national convention of the Synod in Bylaw 3.11. The Commission notes that at
neither the synodical nor the district level does certification involve finances as one of the requirements for
certification. While the congregation can rightly be expected to pay the assessment, that payment cannot be
required for the certification and seating of delegates. Such accreditation cannot be conditioned on the
payment of money.
The Commission would note that the concept of a synod, of which the district is a part, involves that of
walking together. This is reflected in Bylaw 2.39,b which states
The Synod expects every member congregation to respect its resolutions and to consider them of binding
force if they are in accordance with the Word of God and if they appear applicable as far as the condition
of the congregation is concerned. The synod, being an advisory body, recognizes the right of the
congregation to be the judge of the applicability of the resolution to its local condition. However, in
exercising such judgment, a congregation must not act arbitrarily but in accordance with the principles of
Christian love and charity.
In view of this, the district, which is a part of the Synod, can rightly expect its congregations to conform to
the Bylaws of the district unless a requirement does not "appear applicable as far as the condition of the
congregation is concerned." The congregation which does not pay its assessment can rightly be expected to
demonstrate that its local condition makes the assessment requirement inapplicable for them. It would seem
that congregations not paying the assessment for convention expenses should be dealt with evangelically
with the understanding that ultimately its continued membership in the Synod through the district might be
involved.
88. Woman College President : A response had been provided to a pastor who asked whether it was
proper for a woman, who was obviously not eligible to serve as the president of the one of the colleges or
universities of the Synod, if she would follow the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod if elected to the
presidency of an institution. A response had been shared with him indicating that this matter had been dealt
with previously by the Commission on Constitutional Matters and that it had pointed out that the Bylaws
simply do not address the specific question which was raised. The Board of Regents obviously has the right
to indicate to the woman who was nominated that she will not be able to remain as a candidate for the
position because her service in that position would be contrary to the position of the Synod with respect to
the service of women in the church. It is, however, not required to do so. The pastor who raised the question
had responded with appreciation for the answer which had been given, although he indicated that he
respectfully disagreed with it. A further response had been provided, and the pastor in turn had expressed
his appreciation for that response. The Commission on Constitutional Matters now merely reaffirmed the
response which had been given originally to the pastor.