LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 8, 1996, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

noted that 1995 Resolution 3-07A contains no reference to 1989 Resolution 3-05B by which the process
for licensing was established and approved.
The Commission therefore concludes that 1995 Resolution 3-07A was not intended to replace or to
nullify 1989 Resolution 3-05B and does not limit the program referred to in 1995 Resolution 3-07A to
those men licensed at the time of adoption of the resolution.
47. Limitation of Church Council Membership (Ag. 2035) : The chairman of a district Constitutional
Committee had written to the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the requirement in a
congregation for the deaf which limited membership on the Church Council to persons with hearing
impairment. It asked whether this might not possibly be reverse discrimination. It noted that in Bylaw 2.03,
c, of the Handbook there is a statement which says
It shall be the policy of the Synod to decline membership to congregations whose constitutions deny
membership or other congregational privileges to any Christian because of race or ethnic origin.
It was felt that the limitation in the proposed Constitution of the congregation would constitute a similar
prohibition to membership.
The Commission considered the concern which had been expressed and made the following observations:
a) The Commission is cognizant of the scope of its authority, namely, that of interpreting the
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. It is therefore uncomfortable in any attempt to
broaden the interpretation of Bylaw 2.03, c, beyond the obvious meaning of the words contained
therein.
b) The Commission is not aware of the reason for the proposed limitation, but assumes that it has been
included because of a concern for proper and effective communication with members of a
congregation which consists either totally, or for the most part, of persons who are hearing
impaired.
c) If the goal is one of communication, the Commission would suggest that a better, God-pleasing
approach might be to use a phrase such as "only hearing impaired persons or persons able to
communicate with them shall hold an office on the Church Council."
d) The Commission recognizes that in the area of self-government, the Synod is only advisory.
Consequently, it is reluctant to identify other areas than those specified in the Bylaws as possible
reasons for rejecting a congregational constitution. We note, for example, that the argument
regarding discrimination, if it is to be broadened, could apply to congregations which deny woman's
suffrage since the Synod has taken the position that it is not contrary to God's Word.
These observations were forwarded to the Chairman of the District Committee on Constitutional Matters.
48. Congregational Elections (Ag.. 2036) : A pastor had forwarded to the Commission on Constitutional
Matters a number of questions for consideration. They were raised because of the fact that the
congregational constitution required election of officers in April and that date had been passed without the
election taking place. As a result, the following four questions were posed:
2.

Based upon our constitution (Article VIII), can a "special" meeting establish a new "regular"
meeting for the purpose of electing church officers since the April date has passed by?