LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 13, 1992, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

matter. This response has also been forwarded to the synodical Commission on Adjudication Chairman and
to the Chairman of the commission on Appeals. In conversation between the Chairman of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters and the Commission on Appeals, it appeared that the question or a similar one
had been addressed to the Commission on Appeals and a response had been given. The contention of the
COA Chairman was, however, that the only response which had been given related to a matter of
jurisdiction or venue, that is, whether a matter such as that which was under consideration should be taken
to a synodical Commission on Adjudication or a District Commission on Adjudication and, if a District
Commission on Adjudication, which district commission. A copy of the response which had been given by
the Commission on Appeals, however, appears to be a response directly in contradiction to that given by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters. The Chairman of the Commission on Constitutional Matters had
written to the Chairman of the Commission on Appeals expressing concern about what had taken place.
Since that time, no further conversation has ensued and it has assumed that there is agreement that the
response given by the Commission on Constitutional Matters is final.
92. CCM-COA Joint Response : In his instructions to the Commission on Appeals and the Commission
on Constitutional Matters who had been asked to meet in order to resolve conflicting positions which were
held by the groups, the President had asked that a report on the results of the meeting should be made. The
intent was that there be a joint response from the Commission on Appeals and the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. Several attempts to provide such a joint response had previously been made and had
not been successful. The Chairman of the Commission on Constitutional Matters had now prepared a basis
for a joint response which included an opportunity for a separate statement of the CCM and a separate of
the COA. These statements had been provided. The reaction of the members of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, however, to the statement of the Commission on Appeals was that it was
"extraordinarily distorting." It was the view of the members of the Commission that they could not allow
the joint response to be forwarded under these conditions, since it would indicate that since it contained no
dissenting opinion on the part of the CCM to the statement of the Commission on Appeals, it would be
assumed that the COA statement was accurate. In order to resolve this issue, a suggestion was made that the
joint response be forwarded but that it be outside of the two separate statements.
Another suggestion was that in view of the proposals coming from the Task Force on Conflict Resolution, a
response might be delayed until the fall.
No conclusion was reached other than that the Chairman of the Constitutional Matters will seek to contact
the Chairman of the Commission on Appeals to determine whether the impasse which seems to have
developed with regard to the response can be resolved.
93. Alternate Method of CCM Appointment (Ag. 1931) : At a previous meeting Roland Hopmann had
been asked to develop a proposal for an alternate method of appointing members to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. A proposal had been prepared, but due to the lateness of the hour, it was agreed that
the discussion of the matter should be delayed until the next meeting which is scheduled for the evening of
April 24 and the following day.
94. Adjournment : The meeting was adjourned with prayer led by Dr. Schlecht asking for God's blessing
upon the decisions which had been made and for the welfare of the church during the present trouble times.
Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
April 24, 1992