LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 10, 1995, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

replaced with something else.
1.
1.

3.
3.

3.

p. 23. The 5.11 bylaw quoted is not the 5.11 bylaw of 1992. The latter should be substituted.
p. 26. Synodical Bylaw 5.35 of 1992 states that the lay delegate is an advisory not voting
member of the Forum. The change should also be made in 3.07, a, p. 27.
p. 24 is a duplicate of p. 23.

p. 36. For proper syntax, 11.03, a, should read, "Faithfully attend the Commission . . ." 11.03, b,
p. 36 should read, "Participate in
p. 21. Is it wise not to determine in advance how the convention will deal with a tie vote?

3.

p. 10. Is there another way to determine the regions without naming the circuits? Perhaps these
will not change, but if they do it will then require a revision in this bylaw. There may be a more
permanent way to identify or define the regions.

3.

p. 5. Perhaps consideration should be given to the use of the terms "ordained and commissioned
ministers" rather than those given. I can see the wisdom of differentiating "parish pastor" and
"palish teacher" from "pastor" and "teacher," but is there a way to identify deaconesses, directors of
Christian outreach, directors of Christian education? Or are they not eligible to serve-cf. board and
commission membership on p. 7.

3.

If you really want to get "picky" the typo on p. 27, last line, "rpocedure" could be corrected.

The Commission now adopted this response as its own.
129. Congregation Constitution Changes - Required/Recommended (Ag. 2008) : A pastor had written
to the Secretary, stating that he was writing on behalf of the congregational Constitution Committee. The
question which he posed was the following:
Does the District Constitution Committee have authority, when reviewing subsequent congregational
constitutional changes, to require a congregation to alter previously approved provisions?
It was noted that the congregation was not at this time submitting a request for a ruling, but simply seeking
information so that they could proceed. Some of the concern revolved around a review by the District
Constitution Committee which seemed to center around the requirement for adding a gender designation for
Board of Elders, President, and Vice President.
Since the letter had been addressed to the Secretary, a personal response had been provided which stated
As I read your letter I am not certain as to whether the District Constitution Committee has required
changes or merely recommended changes. If it is the latter, you need not make them but can take those
recommendations into account as advice.
If it is the former, that is, that the changes regarding elders, president, and vice-president gender are
required, I would say that years ago-before I became Secretary of the Synod, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters ruled that this provision need not be in congregational constitutions and bylaws.
At the same time, however, it should be noted that the Commission has on a number of occasions made
it clear that whether or not the gender provision is included, a congregation which is a member of the