LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 11-12, 2000, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

recommendations shall be part of the final recommendation to the Board of Assignments.”
Such review of a proposed placement does not rise to the level of line 21 of this document, “If
the District President endorses (emphasis added) the Call,” nor does it provide him with veto
power.
7. The statement on line 30 of page 9, “Candidates will not receive more than one Call at a time,”
begs to be reconsidered in light of our Synod’s understanding of the call and the right of
congregations to call.
8. The question of greatest concern regarding the proposed document is whether the process as
outlined truly complies with the assumption of Bylaw 2.11, a, that the Council of Presidents is
to act as the Board of Assignments (see also Bylaw 3.930, c) to assign first calls to church
workers. The process as proposed suggests that the Council has almost entirely delegated this
responsibility to others, limiting its own involvement to lines 32-33 on page 9. This appears to
not comply with Bylaw 2.11, a, and should be addressed. If the process described in the
proposed document is to be preferred, bylaw changes should be advocated to bring the Bylaws
of the Synod into line with the practice of the Synod.
The Commission also offers brief response to the “Areas of Concern Registered During Presentation to the
COP”:
1. Page 3, lines 37-40

The COP requested a CCM opinion regarding who has the authority to extend a Call in the
LCMS. Therefore, the document has been submitted to the CCM for review.
The Commission refers to its opinion 00-2193 in response to questions raised by the COP and
others regarding the right to extend calls.
2. Page 4, lines 10-31
Are the items included in this section consistent with Scripture, the Handbook of the
Synod, and current policies? Do they allow too much discretion on the part of calling
entities? It was feared by some that the Call under such an understanding doesn’t offer
much protection to a worker.
The question of whether this section is consistent with Scripture should be addressed to the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Current policies, also beyond the purview of this
Commission, should always be consulted and should be reviewed to assure that they reflect the
authority and teachings of Scripture and a spirit of Christian love and concern for the worker. The
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, the purview of this Commission, do not specifically address
the question of the termination of a call by a congregation. The Commission notes, however, that
Bylaw 6.44, which addresses the termination of a faculty position of a synodical college or
university, does offer some guidance for determining conditions upon which a called position may
be terminated.
3. Page 6, lines 13-17
The COP requested a CCM opinion regarding who has the authority to extend a Call in
the LCMS. Therefore, the document has been submitted to the CCM for review.

194