LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 24, 1998, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The Commission observes initially that the clear intent of the Bylaws is that RSOs extend the mission
of the church but that they be independent of the Synod in their administration and finances (Bylaws
14.03, a, b, e). The Synod, in turn, fosters the work of an RSO by making it possible for a minister of
religion (ordained or commissioned) from the Synod to be called to serve such an organization and still
remain an active member of the Synod (Bylaw 2.15,, j). Bylaw 2.15, j, enables a minister of religion to
serve a RSO in a situation that, but for the RSO status of the organization served, would require that the
member of Synod either apply for emeritus status under Bylaw 2.17, candidate status under Bylaw 2.19,
or to resign from the roster of the Synod. The Commission opines that Bylaw 2.15, j, does not, as
Reverend Dierking's question indicates, constitute a grant of authority from the Synod to a RSO in the
sense that the term authority connotes some supervisory power or role of the Synod over the RSO.
Rather, the bylaw deals with the relationship of the member to the Synod (not the relationship of the
RSO to the Synod).
The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws dealing with dispute resolution apply, as Doctor Kalthoff
s question states, only to disputes between members of the Synod, the Synod itself, a district, or an
organization owned and controlled by the Synod. . . RSOs do not fit into any of these categories, and
thus Chapter VIII does not apply to them by its terms.
RSO status may, however, come with strings attached. Bylaws 14.03, c and d, permit the Synod's Board
of Directors and the synodical board which grants an organization RSO status to adopt policies for
granting RSO status. It would be permissible for one of those policies to be that the RSO agrees to
follow the procedures of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws with respect to members of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod called by it. However, since the Commission deals only with interpretation of the
Synod's Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions, examination of such policies in a specific case is beyond
the Commission's scope. The Commission merely observes that such an arrangement would be
permissible by the Constitution and Bylaws.
What, then, of the Synods objectives to provide evangelical supervision, counsel and care for pastors ...
in the performance of their official duties and to provide protection for ... pastors . . . in the performance
of their official duties and the maintenance of their rights (Constitution, Article 111, 8, 9)? These
provisions are just as stated, objectives. They are effective only insofar as they are implemented in the
Bylaws and other policies of the Synod. This opinion has observed that the Bylaws do not require a
RSO to use Chapter VIII to resolve disputes. The Bylaws, however, are not the only means through
which the objectives of the Synod may be carried out. It would be perfectly correct for one aggrieved
by the action of a RSO to appeal for assistance to the board which granted that RSO its status. That
board, in turn, can advise, counsel, and even reproach the RSO if the board feels that the RSO is acting
improperly. However, since the RSO is independent of the Synod, unless RSO status was granted on
the condition of voluntary submission to the procedures of Bylaw Chapter VIII as aforesaid, the only
recourse the board has if the RSO persists in action which the board deems inappropriate is to revoke
the RSOs status as such.
With respect to the second question posed by Reverend Dierking, the Commission has already noted
that while serving a RSO a minister of religion remains an active member of the LCMS. Thus that
member is subject to the ecclesiastical supervision of the appropriate District President (Bylaw 2.41),
That District President is responsible for overseeing the life and doctrine of that member and, if
necessary, for carrying out the provisions of Bylaws 2.21ff should that become necessary.
189. Dual Membership (Ag. 2118): A letter had been received from the president of the United Lutheran
Church Council in Manteca, California, dealing with the issue of dual membership. It included a letter
received from the Praesidium of the Synod, indicating that a decision should be made by August 31 by the
congregation to determine whether it would hold its membership in the ELCA or in The Lutheran Church-