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

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

76. Majority Election for Circuit Counselor (Ag. 2052) : A district secretary had forwarded a request to
the Commission regarding the interpretation of Bylaw 5.11 as it relates to the election of circuit counselors.
He stated that it was his assumption that in the election of the circuit counselors, when the Handbook refers
to "the total number of votes cast on the nominating ballot" it is referring to the total number of names
submitted. After a brief consideration, the Commission concluded that this assumption is correct.
It was further noted that the 1995 convention of the Synod adopted a bylaw intending to deal with problems
related to the election of circuit counselors. Previously Bylaw 5.11 had stated that "every voting
congregation ... shall nominate ... two pastors." By far the largest number of congregations either did not
nominate or nominated only one pastor. Districts noted that the bylaw was impractical, and cumbersome
and resulted in a large number of unresolved elections in the circuit.
In view of the concerns and the change which was made in the bylaw to ..either one or two individual
pastors," it is clearly the intent that majority vote should be based on the number of individual pastoral
candidate votes cast rather than on the majority of congregations casting votes.
77. Authority of Dispute Resolution Panel (Ag. 2053) : A district president had forwarded a number of
questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. He stated that the first question was very vital to a
Dispute Resolution Panel ruling that bore the date of October 10, 1996. He stated that it does not appear to
be a proper ruling according to the Bylaws of the Synod. The questions which he raised with regard to this
were:
a) Does the DRP have the authority to place a pastor on restricted status as indicated in the ruling?
b) Even though the panel states on page 2: "The panel upholds this charge as stated," do they have the
right to set up a "counselor/overseer" procedure?
c) It appears to me that my ecclesiastical responsibility of supervision has been taken away from me by
the DRP. Do you concur?
In a second question, he stated that he had previously asked the CCM about a pastor under suspension
conducting worship services at an association school. He stated that the Commission had ruled that this
would be allowed. At the request of the district Board of Directors, he was asking the CCM to revisit this
decision and asked, "Is it appropriate to allow a pastor under suspension to conduct chapel in an association
school?"
In a third question, he asked, "What happens when a pastor under suspension violates that suspension by
preaching out of state in a public gathering?"
In providing a response, the Commission determined to respond in reverse order to the questions as they
had been presented. It stated:
In response to your third question which asks, "What happens when a pastor under suspension violates
that suspension by preaching out of state in a public gathering?" the Commission replies as follows:
Dealing with the violation of suspension is the responsibility of the District President. The
violation simply constitutes another charge, that of insubordination, as a reason for suspension
and removal. The District President should be able to require the suspended pastor to inform
him if he is asked to preach out of state in a public gathering and that he request permission to
accept the invitation.