LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 7,1997, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Such discretion may not, however, be applied arbitrarily. Although there is no inherent right to
membership in the Synod, membership, once gained, is to be regarded as an important right. In those
cases in which membership may have to be limited for cause or membership terminated, the process
must be substantively and procedurally fair.
Consequently, if the District President concludes that a member should not be retained on candidate
status, he may exercise that option. He must, however, exercise such discretion within the criteria
established in Bylaw 2.19, b, namely, "the health of the applicant, the extent of the current involvement
on a part-time and assisting basis in the ministry of Word and Sacrament, and a demonstrated
willingness to consider a call or appointment to any of the offices of ministry specified in Bylaw 2.15."
In any instance, the Dispute Resolution Process is available to the members if there is disagreement
with the decision of the District President.
The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.19 could be clarified in order to avoid any misunderstanding. It
suggests that the Council of Presidents might wish to discuss the matter and, through appropriate
channels, forward any suggested amendments to the Bylaws which it believes might serve that purpose.
88. Suggested Changes in Guidelines for Constitution and Bylaws of a Congregation (Ag. 2054): The
Chairman of a District Constitution Committee had suggested that changes be made in the proposed
guidelines for the Constitution and Bylaws of a Congregation which had been prepared by the Commission
on Constitutional Matters some years ago. Concern was expressed about using the phrase, "This
congregation shall establish the pastoral office The point was made that it is the Lord who establishes the
pastoral office and the congregation is "establishing the pastoral office among us, or in our midst."
Concern was also expressed about the statement that "All matters shall be decided by a majority vote of the
voters assembly unless otherwise specified by this constitution or bylaws, including matters of doctrine and
conscience which shall be decided only on the basis of the Word of God." It was stated that matters of
doctrine and conscience would not really have to be voted on at all and as Dr. Walther stated, "The only
reason for a vote in such a matter is to see whether all understand." It was noted that, for example, a 51
percent vote could throw out infant Baptism, or any other doctrinal statement of the Synod. It was felt that
the statement in the guidelines should better be ended at the word "bylaws."
Discussion of the matter indicated that there were some apparent differences in the understanding of certain
words, for example, the word "establish." It was also noted that in voting on a doctrinal issue, the persons
voting indicated that at the time of the voting this was their understanding of the Scriptures, and the matter
of understanding always involves interpretation. It was suggested that in order to clarify some of these
concerns, a footnote might be added to the guidelines in those sections which were cited. David Piehler was
asked to prepare a response to the second question, while the Secretary was to prepare a response to the first
issue. These responses are to be circulated for consideration for a final response at a future meeting of the
Commission.
89. Procedure for Approval of Amendments (Ag. 2056): At the 1995 synodical convention, differences
of opinion had surfaced regarding the responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters because
of differences in wording regarding these responsibilities as found in Bylaw 15.01, 1, d, and Bylaw 3.905,
a. It was the feeling of some that in order for bylaws to be cleared for consideration by convention, they had
to be specifically submitted to the Commission on Constitutional Matters for examination. Others felt that
the responsibility of the Commission as identified in Bylaw 3.905, a, made it obvious that the Commission
was to examine all bylaw amendments, whether specifically submitted to them or not. Furthermore, the
concern had also been raised with respect to the conflict which might arise if the Commission were
involved in the legislative process of developing bylaws which it would later be called upon to interpret. It