LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 4-5, 1994, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

b)

continued polling of congregations until a majority was achieved

c) drawing of lots
d)

caucusing by circuit representatives to achieve a majority vote

e) any other method.
There is no more precedent for a different procedure than for that which was proposed. All possibilities
would be equally valid. Option "d" is as valid as any other absent direction from the convention.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the action was not in violation of the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod.
The Commission encourages all congregations in the regions to recognize the results of this first effort
toward implementing a new structure as valid and responsible actions and to move forward under the
Mission Statement adopted, namely,
The Mission of the California-Nevada-Hawaii District is to challenge and assist congregations in
their proclamation of the Gospel and ministry to all people.
The decision of the Commission was shared with the President of the district, as well as a number of pastors
who had requested a ruling from the Commission.
102. Members Placed Under the Minor Ban (Ag. 1998) : Questions regarding the proper application of
the minor ban were presented to the Commission for consideration. Because of time limitations, the
Commission postponed consideration of this matter until a later telephone conference.
103. Use of Name Lutheran in Congregational Name (Ag. 1999) : A late request had been received
regarding the requirement of the use of the name Lutheran in the legal name of congregations belonging to
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Because of time limitations, the Commission postponed discussion
of this matter until a later telephone conference.
104. Restricted/Candidate Status (Ag. 2000) : In a letter to the chairman, a pastor had posed a question
which in effect asked, "Does the placement of a pastor on candidate status by the District President nullify
the restricted status on which he was placed while the pastor of a congregation, from which position he
subsequently resigned?" The letter had been forwarded to the Secretary, who provided a personal response
as follows:
My personal opinion is that it does not. My reason for stating this is that even in candidate status that
person may be declared eligible to perform certain functions of the ministry with the approval of the
District President as stated in Bylaw 2.23 b 1. Stated negatively, his authority to perform those
functions is restricted by the District President to those which the President approves. As a person who
is still on the roster of the Synod in a candidate status with the restriction referred to above, he is not
eligible to accept any other position of service in the Synod, Bylaw 2.23 b 2. A complete reading of
2.23 b 1 is necessary rather than limiting the reading to the first part.
My personal opinion also is that the use of the term status in association with "active," "candidate,"
"restricted" and "suspended" is confusing. Perhaps a different term should be used for "restricted" and
"suspended." The actual situation is that one may be on active status but also be restricted or suspended
and one may be on candidate status and also be restricted or suspended.