LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 2, 1994, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

1.

Challenges can be resolved by district conventions. At the present time, congregations seeking
membership may appeal to the district convention if their application is denied. It would seem logical
that would also be the forum for appeals by congregations who are already members and who do not
believe the changes which a District Constitution Committee requires is either valid or desirable.

1.

Challenges could be addressed to the synodical Commission on Constitutional Matters by the
District Constitution Committee.

1.

Allow the panel of district reconcilers in the district where the challenge occurs to hear the matter
and provide a decision.

Of the three possible options listed, a preference was stated for the first. A response had now been received
from the District Constitution Committee Chairman in which he indicated the response provided did not
answer his concern. He now stated that the concern of the Constitution Committee centered around the
sentence, "In the event that the changes that are made are challenged, the District Commission on
Adjudication shall decide." In view of this, he stated that the question is, "What is to be substituted for the
commission that no longer exists?"
He then went on to state that the Committee on Constitutions is not in any way involved in the matter since
what is challenged is not a change that the committee requires in a constitution submitted to it by a
congregation but rather an article or a part thereof in an already approved and operative constitution of a
congregation. Challenges would probably relate to such articles as confessional standard, property rights,
and the pastoral office. As a substitute, it was suggested that the sentence might now read, "In the event that
the changes that are made are challenged, the District Commission authorized to deal with challenges shall
decide." The reason for not being specific, such as using the word, “reconcilers," was that the Synod might
at some time in the future specify another commission or group to deal with such matters.
After discussing the request, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
The Commission on Constitutional Matters expresses its appreciation for the clarification provided in
your letter of March 29, 1994, and believes it now understands the concern which you wished to have
addressed.
In addition to the fact that the Commission believes the proposal to have district reconcilers make the
necessary decision in certain cases is the best one of those previously forwarded - (The Commission does
not believe it is the responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters to make the decision or
that is wise or even possible for a district convention to make it.) - it notes that the Guidelines for the
Constitution and Bylaws of a Congregation revised in 1984 contain the following:
9.0 DIVISION
It is an unhappy fact of life that disagreements do occur even in Christian congregations, and that
at times the result is not reconciliation, but a parting of ways. It is best to set down the
principles far in advance which shall govern such a situation if it should ever arise. Example:
9.1
If at any time a division should take place on account of doctrine, the property of
the congregation and all benefits connected therewith shall remain with those
communicant members who continue to adhere in confession and practice to Section 3
of this constitution, as determined by the adjudication procedures of the Synod.
9.2
If division takes place for any other reason, the property shall remain with
the majority of the communicant members who continue to adhere in confession and