LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 10-11, 1994, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

80. Constitutionality of Convention Resolution and Application of Dispute Resolution Process (Ag.
1964, 1965,A-B; Min. 61) : At one of its previous meetings, the Commission had asked Chairman Groh to
prepare a response to a request received from the Board of Directors of LCMS, Inc. as to whether a
resolution adopted by the Synod limiting inspection of financial records could take precedence over
Missouri not-for-profit corporate law which gives members the right to inspect financial records for a
proper purpose. Included in the consideration was also the question of whether a dispute revolving around
proper purpose should be resolved through the Dispute Resolution Process of the Synod or through other
means. Interwoven with these issues was the question of the meaning of membership in the Synod.
Chairman Groh had prepared a response which was shared with the Commission, a response with which all
members agreed. The response is as follows:
(Will be printed later)
81. Adjournment : Having completed its business, the meeting of the Commission was concluded with
prayer.
Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters - June 10-11, 1994
82. Opening Prayer : Judge Groh asked Dr. Richard Schlecht to lead the Commission in an opening prayer
as it began its discussion of issues before it.
83. Transfer of Congregation (Ag. 1981, 1981,B) : Letters had been received from two congregations in
Wisconsin which had requested transfers from the South Wisconsin District to the English District. The
members of the Board of Directors of the South Wisconsin District had not agreed to the transfer. As a
result, the congregations had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to provide an opinion
regarding the "refusal of a transfer of a congregation from a geographical to a non-geographical district."
The Commission decided to respond as follows, providing the same response to both congregations.
4.
Bylaw 1.05 b states that it is the Synod which creates the districts. Bylaw 4.03 states that it is the
Synod which "decides when and whether a district shall be formed, divided, realigned ... determines
the boundaries of a district . . ." Consequently, a district cannot* simply grant a peaceful release to
another district. It may agree to and even recommend such a "realignment" by transfer to another
district. However, it cannot unilaterally make such a transfer. In addition, another district may not
unilaterally determine to receive a congregation into that district at the congregation's request, the
request of the "transferring" district, or both.
4.

The Board of Directors of a district may determine not to recommend the transfer of a
congregation. However, if it does so on the basis of what it considers to be belief or practice on the
part of the congregation which is not in keeping with the position of the Synod it is, in effect,
declaring that the congregation is not in good standing and is obligated to deal with it. If it does not
do so but still does not approve a request for transfer, it must either state other reasons for that
refusal or acknowledge the fact that it is merely its opinion or judgment that such transfer would not
be beneficial for the congregation, the district, and/or the church-at-large.

4.

If the Board of Directors does not wish to recommend a transfer or approve a request for such, the
matter could be brought before the district convention for decision. It is even possible that the
request could be brought before the national convention of the Synod since it is that group which