LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 17, 2000, Page 1

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The Commission notes that Overture 3-42 to the 1981synodical convention asked for
permission to use the title “Bishop.” It resolved, “That the Synod in convention
assembled permissively grant as an alternate title the Scriptural term bishop to the
President of the Synod and the District Presidents and the Vice-Presidents of both the
Synod and the Districts, but for legal purposes the designation President/Vice-President
be retained in the Constitution.”
In response, Resolution 3-19, “To Retain the Terminology of ‘President’ and ‘VicePresident,’” respectfully declined Overture 3-42. The Commission notes, therefore, that
while a resolution to remove term limits for the President of the English District is
acceptable, the use of the term “Bishop” in the overture and any ensuing convention
action advocating the removal of term limits is out of order.
159. Questions Re Conflict of Interest, District-Initiated Programs, Agreements with Heterodox
Entities (99-2173A)
A member of the Synod, upon request of the Commission, reworded his questions originally submitted to
the Commission in his December 1999 letter. The Commission responded as follows:
Question 1:

“Do the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod address whether
employees or ministers of the Synod and its Districts, while in the formal, full-time
employment of Synod, may draw a regular stipend or receive frequent honoraria
from organizations or enterprises and/or use synodical resources to promote such
organizations or enterprises for which they have developed, sponsored, served or
promoted programs or consulting services designed with the intent of selling those
programs or services to Synod or its member congregations and institutions? Could
not such efforts, if permitted fall into a conflict of interest wherein employees are
using Synodical time and resources to service an agency (be it an RSO or some other
organization) outside of Synod and potentially at-odds with Synod?”

Opinion: Synod Bylaw 3.71 deals with the question of conflict of interest. It requires each governing
board of a Synod entity to institute a conflict of interest policy. Interpretation of such individual policies
is beyond the scope of this Commission’s duties under Bylaw 3.905, d. The question posed actually
contains multiple questions that are very general. Specific cases should be measured against the
provisions of Bylaw 3.71 and the conflict of interest policy of the appropriate board. The final question of
this paragraph seems to be a rhetorical question of policy rather than a request for an interpretation of the
Constitution and Bylaws and is thus beyond the duties of this Commission.
Question 2:

“Would it be a violation of Synodical Bylaw 3.409 or any other Synodical bylaw if
(a) individual, rostered church workers, (b) member congregations of the Synod, or
(c) Synodical Districts, of their own initiative (i.e. without any specific directive from
Synod), were to establish and promote Synod-wide programs for educating pastors,
other commissioned ministers, or laypeople? (And if rostered church workers,
member congregations, or Synodical Districts are permitted to establish and
promote such programs on a Synod-wide basis, what entity bears the responsibility
for supervision of these programs with regard to Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws,
doctrine and practice; and what entity would address concerns raised by members
of the Synod?)”

Opinion: To answer this question requires that a distinction be made between (1) undergraduate and
seminary education, which falls under the responsibilities of the Board for Higher Education pursuant to

172