LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 16, 1993, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

is implied in your request for help, it is the responsibility of the Ohio District Constitution Committee to
deal with any legal or operational deficiencies which are contained in the document. Nevertheless, the
Commission does observe and concur with your own observation that the proposed constitution contains
flaws and vulnerabilities which point to the desirability for continued consultation with the congregation
regarding an orderly process for governance.
Among the many points which the Commission could cite are the following:
1.

The confessional basis refers to the Tappert edition. This is not necessarily the best translation.
Does this mean that where it is deficient it is authoritative rather than the original? It is also noted that
the relation of the confession to the Scripture is not clarified. Are they a basis because they are "a true
and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God"?

1.

Synodical Bylaw 2.03 requires approval of bylaws. Community of Hope has no bylaws. It speaks of
policies which can be changed to meet changing conditions. Will these policies as they are changed
be forwarded to the District Committee on Constitutional Matters for review and recommendation?
(Policies are different from manuals of procedure which define how policies or bylaws are
implemented.)

1.

It is true that the Guidelines for the Constitution and Bylaws of a Congregation are advisory.
However, is there anything in the Constitution of Community of Hope which defines its relationship
to the Synod as it is outlined in Bylaw 2.39 including a readiness to "respect the resolutions of the
Synod and to consider them of binding force . . ." Because of the lack of specificity in so many areas,
it would seem that inclusion of something of this nature would be desirable.

1.

There is no need to have a specific statement regarding the service of women and, of course, that is
not the important point. What is important is the functions which they carry out. Unless there is some
statement such as that contained in #3 above there is no way of knowing whether the congregation
will function in accord with the positions and practices of the Synod.

These are a few of the areas of concern which the Commission on Constitutional Matters has noted and
which it believes call for discussion with the congregation. Your committee has identified others and
perhaps has already dealt with them.
Ultimately, as noted above, the District Constitution Committee will have to determine whether it can
recommend the Constitution of Community of Hope for approval. If the committee cannot do so, and the
District Board of Directors agrees with the committee, the congregation needs to be made aware of its
option under synodical Bylaw 2.01 b.
53. Statement of Synodical Membership in Congregational Constitution Ag. 1950) : A letter had been
forwarded from the President of the Texas District asking the following questions:
1.
Does the CCM feel that there should be a requirement for inclusion of a statement of membership
in the LCMS in the constitution and bylaws of a congregation?

1.

If so, would the CCM be willing to present a memorial to the 1995 synodical convention
encouraging a bylaw amendment to that effect?

In response to an earlier communication regarding this matter, the Secretary had written to President
Kieschnick and pointed out that the issue had already been addressed by the CCM in July 1972 in which the
Commission had stated in response to a similar question,