LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 18, 1998, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

faithfulness." Bylaw 6.44, a, clearly states that a faculty member may be totally competent in a
particular area and faithful in service, but may no longer be able to contribute to the institution.
Reasons for this may be that competency is in an area involving a program which is being
discontinued or a division or department which is being discontinued, Bylaw 6.44, a, 1, 2.
Discontinuance of such department or program would not reflect on a faculty member's
competency or faithfulness.
2. Neither Bylaw 6.44, c, or 6.44, e, are violated if full-time faculty positions are terminated under a
RIF policy and then replaced with part-time adjunct faculty in the same academic field.
3. Yes, Bylaws 6.44, c, and 6.44, e, are violated if, under the circumstances described, former fulltime faculty members are not offered the opportunity to teach as many of the new part-time
adjunct courses available for which former faculty members are qualified and eligible to teach.
This letter which had previously been sent was also ratified by the Commission.
142. Actions of Commission on Doctrinal Review (Ag. 2098): A pastor raised questions regarding actions
of the Commission on Doctrinal Review and its decision relative to a book which had previously been
certified as doctrinally approved. In a previous letter to the pastor, the Commission on Doctrinal Review
had stated that "with its assessment of August 8, 1997, the Commission regards its task as done." That letter
did not revoke the authorization for the book. However, a letter of February 11, 1998, stated that "the
Commission withdraws the doctrinal certification of this book." It was pointed out that this letter contained
no references to specific passages in the book, nor did it make any reference to Scripture or the Lutheran
Confessions. In previous correspondence, the Commission on Doctrinal Review had included a document
which it described as being "persuasive with the Commission in identifying salient errors in the book." The
questions which were now addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters were as follows:
1. Would violations of the Bylaws of Synod, such as the ones illustrated in this circumstance, namely
the violations of paragraphs 11.5, d, f, and g, have any impact on the validity or enforcement of the
Commission's ruling.?
2. Would these bylaw violations render the ruling "null and void"?
3. Would synodical Bylaw 8.01 permit me, as co-author of the book in question (or as "the sponsoring
group" in Bylaw 11.15, d) to become a complainant against the Commission on Doctrinal Review
in an effort to alter or nullify the Commission's ruling under the synodical dispute resolution
process?
Responding to these questions, the Commission stated the following:
Without speaking to the issue of whether the doctrinal approval of the work cited should be revoked,
the Commission concludes that prior certification stands unless or until the provisions of Bylaw 11.5
have been followed. These require that specific complaints need to be elucidated and specific references
must be cited in order to meet the requirements of Bylaw 11.15, c and g.
With respect to your third question, the Commission concludes that the dispute resolution procedure
may be followed regarding the question of whether the provisions of Bylaw 11.15 have been met. If it is
concluded that the procedures have been followed, the decision of the Commission on Doctrinal
Review may not be nullified.
The Commission believes that this response answers the questions which you posed.