LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 27, 1993, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

congregation has proposed is subject to misunderstanding and that the suggestion you are offering is
intended to eliminate that.
As to the voting, you are properly concerned. It has always been the view of the Commission that voting
should be reserved for those of legal voting age. In all cases we have encouraged congregations or District
Constitution Committees to consult legal counsel since legal requirements on these matters can vary from
state to state.
After reviewing the response which had been provided, the Commission on Constitutional Matters ratified it
as representing their views on the issues concerning which an opinion had been requested.
23. Denial of Ability of Subsidized Congregation to Call a Pastor (Ag. 1947) : The Commission had
been asked to respond to a question, "May a district subsidized congregation be denied the ability to call a
pastor?"
In response, the Secretary had stated:
It would be helpful for the Commission to know if the question really revolves around "the ability" or
"the right" of the congregation. If it is the latter, the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod make it clear
that a congregation of the Synod has the right of self-government and that the Synod, with respect to this,
is but an advisory body. This is clear from Article VII of the Constitution. The Commission on
Constitutional Matters ruled many years ago that a congregation of the Synod may not be deprived of the
right to call its pastor.
If the question is one of ability, that is another issue. Does this mean that by reducing or eliminating a
subsidy, the congregation can no longer afford to call a pastor and therefore does not have the ability to
call a pastor? If so, that is another matter. That question would involve the determination of who has the
authority to designate an amount of subsidy. Has this been given directly by the district or through its
bylaws to the board of directors or some other entity.? Has the district, by specific resolution, stated an
amount or percentage of subsidy which is to be provided? If either of these has the authority to determine
subsidy or if no specific amount or percentage has been directed by the district itself, it would appear that
the district may deny a subsidized congregation the ability to call a pastor simply by elimination or
reduction of the subsidy to the point where it is no longer able to afford the service of a pastor.
Whether the authority to do so should be exercised is beyond the purview of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters. Further clarification of the question which you posed to the Commission will be
appreciated as it deliberates on the issues involved.
A response to the Secretary's letter had been received which indicated that the questions surrounding the
initial question had been fully answered and that there was no need for the Commission on Constitutional
Matters to devote further consideration to this issue.
24. District Bylaw Changes (Ag. 1948) : The Secretary of the Southern Illinois District had proposed
certain changes in the bylaws of the district which would conform to the dispute resolution bylaws adopted
by the Synod in convention and contained in Chapter VIII of the Handbook. The Secretary of the district
had indicated that he felt that there needed to be some additions to the district bylaws which would provide
for allowing involvement of the district reconcilers in internal congregation matters. It was his belief that
these matters were not clearly dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Handbook and therefore there was no
authorization for utilization of the dispute resolution process in such matters. In correspondence with the
district Secretary, the Secretary of the Synod had stated that in his opinion there should be no difficulty in
merely substituting the processes of new Chapter VIII for any previous references in the district bylaws to