LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 10, 1995, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

I fully agree with what you have stated in your letter. The major concern of a District Committee on
Constitutional Matters is that congregational constitutions include nothing contrary to the Constitution
and Bylaws of the Synod or its doctrine and practice. As Article VII of the Constitution of the Synod
states, the Synod is but an advisory body with respect to the congregation's right of self-government.
You are absolutely correct when you say the Guidelines provided by the CCM are "just that."
The idea of experimenting as you suggest sounds good. It agrees with a comparable view of mine with
respect to college campuses. You never put down a permanent sidewalk until students have indicated by
well-worn paths where they should be.
The one caution which I would express is that great care needs to be taken so that no one can question
any action based on unapproved bylaws. Much of that could perhaps be done through informal
conversation with the District Constitution Committee. If there is a possibility that operating in an
experimental way could cause legal difficulties, I would counsel against such action. Apart from that, I
would not foresee any reason not to proceed as suggested."
While agreeing to a large extent with the reply which had been given, the Commission asked that attention
be called especially to Bylaw 2.03, b, which states, "A member congregation which revises its constitution
or bylaws or adopts a new constitution or bylaws shall, as a condition to continued eligibility as a member
of the Synod, submit such revised or new constitution and/or bylaws to the District President, who shall
refer such to the District's constitution committee for review to ascertain that the provisions are in harmony
with Holy Scripture, the Confessions, and the teachings and practices of the Synod." The Commission
wished to make it perfectly clear that it did not intend in any way to undermine the authority and
responsibility of the District's Constitution Committee. Furthermore, it fully endorsed the caution which
was expressed regarding the care which needed to be taken so that no one might question any action of the
congregation which was based on unapproved bylaws and which could cause legal difficulties. Continued
informal conversation with the District Constitution Committee was encouraged during the time when the
congregation is considering a revision of its constitution and/or bylaws.
126. Transfer of Congregations (Ag. 1981, C : Secretary Gary Gehlbach of the South Wisconsin District
had written to the Commission on Constitutional Matters, raising a number of questions and expressing
concerns regarding the meaning of the phrase "a member of the Synod in good standing" as this applies to
the transfer of congregations from one district to another. This issue was raised in view of the fact that the
Board of Directors of the South Wisconsin District had agreed to the request for transfer of Peace Lutheran
Church from the South Wisconsin District to the English District. In the process of that request, a number of
concerns had been previously raised by the Board of Directors of the South Wisconsin District.
Since both the South Wisconsin District and the English District Boards of Directors had approved the
transfer, the matter was now before the Synod and had been included in an overture to the 1995 convention.
In view of this development, the Commission concluded that it would take no action at this time on the
request regarding the meaning of "a member in good standing." It recognized that Secretary Gehlbach, as a
member of the Synod, was eligible to raise the questions which had been placed before the Commission.
The Commission will, therefore, review the matter following the 1995 convention.
127. Eligibility of Lay Minister/Deacon to Serve on District and Synodical Board of Directors (Ag.
2006) : A lay minister had written to the Commission requesting an opinion regarding service on a district
or synodical board of directors. Specifically, the question was