LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 8, 1997, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

9. If it is a requirement that I sign the constitution and transfer my membership, is it also in my rights to
demand that all voting delegates to the synodical convention give evidence of doing the same. If so,
how do I do this?
During the discussion which followed, references were made to Article V of the Constitution, which states
that a vote in a convention is to be cast by the pastor and the lay delegate. Consideration should be given to
this article to determine whether it is relevant in responding to the questions which had been posed. Other
elements in the discussion indicated that the implicit logic of the polity of the Synod is that the pastor be a
member of the congregation of which he is a pastor and that it cannot be a matter of good order for the
pastor to stand above or apart from the congregation.
Because of the nature of the questions, the Commission concluded that the matter should be referred first of
all to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations for response to what are considered to be
theological questions contained in the series of questions forwarded. It was noted that the theology of the
call may be involved in the entire issue. The conclusion of the Commission was that inasmuch as
theological issues are involved, a response to the questions should be held in abeyance until a reply had
been received from the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
134. Procedure of Praesidium in Disputes (Ag. 2092): A pastor had written to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, indicating that in response to charges brought against him and his associate pastor,
the District President had convened a doctrinal review panel to examine the matter. Following this
investigation, no specific instances were found in which the preaching and teaching of the pastor and his
associate were faulty. The District President had informed the woman making the accusations that the
matter was closed.
The ruling of the District President was appealed to the Praesidium of the Synod, which informed the
complainant, as well as the pastors, that the ruling of the District President was upheld. The complainant
then appealed the Praesidium's decision once again and following this a letter had been received from the
President, informing the pastor and his associate that the District President "needs to continue to carry out
his ecclesiastical responsibility," with the implication that the Praesidium decision in May to uphold the
district panel was now reversed. The District President in response to a specific inquiry had informed the
pastor and his associate that the President had directed him to reopen the charges against them and that he
was not to ask the complainant to abide by Matthew 18.
The specific question which was being asked of the Commission was the following:
Once the Praesidium has issued a decision on an appeal, does this end the matter, or may the appellant
protest the decision and gain a reversal?
The Commission discussed the question which had been raised and noted that the bylaw is quite explicit in
indicating that once a decision has been made by the Praesidium, that terminates the matter. Chairman
Tesch was asked to prepare a response which would be circulated to the other members of the Commission
for their reaction.
135. Reduction in Force Policy (Ag. 2093): A pastor had forwarded a request for an opinion to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters with respect to the following questions:
1. Is Bylaw 6.44, a, violated if faculty positions are terminated under a RIF policy based on a rating of a
particular professor's "contribution to the institution"? ("Contribution to the institution" cannot, in
my opinion, be distinguished in practice from the standards of "competency and faithfulness,"
which is the language of 6.44, a.)