Hordern, William Edward

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 21Issue 1 Women and Men in Theological Education:Exploring the Present, Creating the FutureArticle 125-1-1995Reconsidering: The Church's ConstitutionWilliam Edward HordernFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Studies and Observations is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion inConsensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationHordern, William Edward (1995) "Reconsidering: The Church's Constitution," Consensus: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 , Article 12.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol21/iss1/12ReconsideringThe Church’s ConstitutionWilliam HordernPresident Emeritus,Lutheran Theological Seminary, SaskatoonAs a member of the Merger Commission 1, I was asked towrite this article to answer the question: “In light of the expe-rience of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC),where do you think the Commission could have improved itsConstitution?”With the advantage of hindsight it is never difficult to seewhere improvements could have been made. It is one thingto sit around a table, as the Merger Commission did, to plana church. It is quite another thing to see a church in action.Nonetheless, I would like to begin by saying that I do believethat the Merger Commission did many things that were right.For example, since the ELCIC came into being in 1985, it haslost only a handful of congregations and most of these werealready considering leaving their church before the merger. Ifone studies the history of church mergers, it is evident thatmost of them have resulted in the loss of many more congre-gations. The Merger Commission can take satisfaction fromdoing many things right.Recent events have displayed a major weakness in the wayin which the ELCIC was constituted. The May 1994 issue ofCanada Lutheran, the national magazine of the ELCIC, re-ported that, because of financial reasons, the National Councilof the ELCIC had to make severe cuts to programs. The po-sitions of the Executive directors of the Divisions for Churchand Society and World Mission were eliminated. A cutback infunds for the division boards means that they will meet onlyonce a year. These actions cannot but result in a serious declinein the programs and mission of the ELCIC.In large part, this situation results from the failure of theMerger Commission to constitute a strong national church.104 ConsensusThe synods obviously have more power than the nationalchurch. One might even argue that we built five churchesrather than one. Ted Jacobson, President of the Evangeli-cal Lutheran Church of Canada 2^ argued again and again inthe Merger Commission that we needed to build a strong na-tional church. The response to him was that we wanted tobuild a strong church at every level—national, synodical andcongregational. But the national church has not proved to bestrong.There are several reasons for this. The Merger Commissionset up five Synods. The size of ELCIC’s membership makesthis unrealistic. Synod offices are expensive to run and thesmall constituency of the ELCIC cannot afford five of them. Ifthere had been fewer Synods, many of the functions performedby Synods could be handled by the Conferences^. This wouldbe less expensive since Conferences do not operate with full-time employees. Other churches have operated successfully onthis basis. At one point the Commission seriously consideredhaving only two Synods, one in the East and one in the West.In light of history, this idea has considerable merit.The Commission also decided that the flow of financialfunds should go from congregations to Synods to the NationalChurch. This has resulted in Synods cutting back on the fundssent to the National Church in order to preserve synodical pro-grams. The same issue of Canada Lutheran reported that dur-ing the years 1986 to 1992 congregational income increased by27%, synodical income increased by 9% while the income sentto the National Church decreased by 5%. Control of financesresults in power and thus the Synods are more powerful thanthe National Church.Faced with the cutbacks to the National Church, BishopTelmor Sartison (the national Bishop), expressed the serious-ness of the problem. He said, “It comes down to the issue ofmission and ministry. Are we a people in mission? Are we sentand going?”When the Merger Commission was designing the ELCICit would have been easy to reduce the number of Synods buttoday that will be very difficult to do. Once a Synod has comeinto being inevitably it is motivated to defend its own turf. Thesame issue of Canada Lutheran that reported the financial cut-backs also reported that the Manitoba-Northwestern OntarioConstitution 105Synod voted down a proposal that would only have exploredthe implications of a merger with the Saskatchewan Synod. Asimilar attitude can be expected from the other Synods.Another problem has to do with the bishops. The Com-mission desired to have bishops serve as “pastors to the pas-tors”. This was an important reason for naming them “bish-ops” rather than “presidents”. The term “bishop”, it was ar-gued, is an ecclesiastical term whereas “president” is a secularterm. The term “bishop” was to signify the pastoral nature ofthe office.Inasmuch as the bishops play an important role in the call-ing of pastors, there was an obvious problem. Would pastorsbe ready to bring their problems to a person who has consid-erable power over where they may be called, or even whetherthey will be called at all?But the Constitution made it even more difficult for bish-ops to act as pastors to pastors. The problem is in 111:12 ofthe Bylaws. Items a-f outline the normal procedure for disci-pline of an ordained minister. The Synod bishop shall, uponlearning of reasons for discipline, “investigate such matters,counsel with the minister and seek to remove any cause forcomplaint” . If counselling fails, the bishop may appoint an in-vestigating committee. The bishop is to be a member of theinvestigating committee. This committee decides whether ornot there should be a disciplinary committee which may call forcensure and admonition by the bishop or by the Synod councilor suspension or removal from the clergy roster.This procedure gives a central role to the bishop in mattersof discipline. The bishop is named as the one to investigatecharges, and to both appoint and serve on the investigatingcommittee. Can pastors see as their pastor one who has suchpowers of disciplinary action?Section 12 h makes matters even worse. It allows the bishopto suspend the pastor before the charges are investigated orhandled by the investigating and disciplinary committees. Itnames certain situations under which this procedure may befollowed: “obvious heresy or flagrant immorality, or if the ac-cused shall have admitted guilt or absconded”.These seem fairly logical. But the item goes on to say, “Ifthe circumstances are such that, in the opinion of the bishop106 Consensusof the synod, the church would suffer injury if the accused||continued to exercise the office of the ordained ministry dur- |ing the progress of the disciplinary procedure, the bishop may ^immediately suspend the accused....” This provision gives thebishop the absolute power to act unilaterally and suspend apastor. Later, there will be a disciplinary hearing, but whensuch action has been taken by the bishop, there is an obviousimplication of guilt already established. The pastor is likely to |feel it is a matter of “We shall give you a fair trial and then you iwill be hanged”. The bishops themselves should be reluctantto see this article retained. Action under it leaves the bishopopen to legal action. If indeed the situation is this serious,surely some committee should be able to act and bear the re-sponsibility for it. However, the presence of this power in thehands of the bishop makes it most unlikely that pastors willconhde in the bishop as their pastor when they have seriousproblems.In practice bishops have often acted as pastors to pastors.'But where this has occurred, it has been in spite of the con-istitutional powers given to bishops. And it is certain that theconstitutional powers have kept many other pastors from turn-|ing to a bishop for pastoral help.|If we had wanted the bishops to be administrators and disci- Iplinarians, then the constitution makes some sense although it ishould not have given such autocratic powers to bishops. This ^would, of course, fit in with the historic meaning of the term|“bishop”. But if that is what we wanted we should not havetalked so much about the bishops as pastors to the pastors.pWhen the Merger Commission was meeting, we were not as Isensitive to individual rights as we are today. As a result, theifconstitution does not protect the rights of an accused pastor Iin a satisfactory manner. :There are problems with the investigating and disciplinarycommittees in the Constitution. The investigating committeeis appointed by the bishop. The disciplinary committee is ap-pointed by the Synod Council and the bishop of the Church.In secular law the accused, through his or her lawyer, has theright to veto certain suggested jurors. Our Constitution doesnot give the accused pastor any right to challenge the appoint-ment of the committee members who act as the jury in thecase.jConstitution 107In the case of the investigating committee, the bishop actsboth to bring the charges and to appoint those who will hearthem. And the bishop is a member of the investigating com-jmittee. This is a conflict of interest. The bishop acts as theprosecuting attorney and also serves on the jury. Inasmuchas the disciplinary committee is chosen by the Synod Counciland the bishop of the Church, there is less obvious conflict ofIinterest. But in both cases the accused ought to have a right^ to challenge appointees that may have reason to be biased to-wards the accused.It might be argued that in a Christian church such biasesare out of place. They are. But, as Luther saw so clearly, theiChristian is always at one and the same time both justifiedIand sinful. An accused pastor certainly should have the sameI right as an accused person in a secular court has to reject anyappointee whom he or she believes would be biased.The Lutheran Confessions give a central place to the con-gregations. The church is defined in the Augsburg Confessioni as “the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is( preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are adminis-I tered according to the Gospel”. ^ This means that the congre-gation is the primary form of the church’s existence because it« is the place where normally believers assemble for the preach-I ing of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.3 There are also practical reasons for the primacy of the con-I gregation. All other levels of the church are supported, finan-i dally and otherwise, by the congregations. Therefore, one oft the major concerns of the Reformers was that the congrega-Ition should have the right to call its pastor(s).^ Ordination of(pastors should come only after the call.The Constitution of the ELCIC is basically in keeping withthis but at some points there are problems. Article VI sectionI affirms the power of the congregations to call pastors but itadds “after consulting with the bishop of the synod”. This cre-ates questions as to authority. What the Merger Commissionhad in mind was that the bishop’s office is a clearing house forcalls. It is aware of which pastors might be open to a call andit is aware of the abilities of pastors and the need of congrega-tions. In most cases, the congregation is happy to have suchhelp.108 ConsensusNonetheless, as written, the Constitution can be interpretedto mean that the bishop gives the congregation the permis-|sion to call. This would be contrary to the Confessions whichclearly affirm that it is not the bishop but God who gives thecongregation the right to call. I was a member of a congrega-tion of the American Lutheran Church that decided to set upits own search committee to find a pastor. The district pres- iident was deeply offended at not having first been consulted.But the ALC constitution did not prohibit the action of the icongregation. Would this be permissible under the ELCIC|- Constitution?jRecently I spoke with a layperson who was deeply concernedjabout the call procedure in his congregation. The Call Com-jmittee met with the bishop and one candidate was selected,jThe congregation was given only the option of voting yes or|not to the selected pastor. The layperson said, “In the former||USSR the Communist Party selected candidates and the peo-ple could only vote yes or no. We called this an example ofundemocratic and dictatorial action. What do we call it whenthe same thing occurs in the Lutheran church?” Obviously, ifwe are to preserve the Reformers’ concern that the congrega-tion has the right to call its pastor, the congregation must havea greater opportunity to make the decision.The March, 1994 issue of Canada Lutheran had an articleabout unemployed pastors. Letters to later issues indicate thatthis is not an isolated problem. Why are these pastors unem-ployed? The ELCIC has a great many vacant parishes. If morecongregations took the initiative to search out pastors for callwould it relieve this situation?The ELCIC Constitution makes it clear that ordination de-pends upon a person having received a call which, in mostcases, comes from a congregation. However, the disciplinaryprocess for pastors does not give the congregation any rightto be involved in the disciplinary process. This is a seriouslimitation upon the power of the congregation.I know of a congregation that was deeply angered when thebishop (acting under article III section 12, h. of the Bylawsdescribed above) suspended a pastor without any consultationwith the congregation. When members of the congregationasked to whom they could appeal the action, they were toldthat they could not appeal it. The congregation was split asConstitution 109a result and some members left not only the congregation butalso the ELCIC.In practice, as this case demonstrates, a congregation isangered when its chosen pastor is removed without it havingany way of being involved in the decision. It feels that it hasbeen bypassed by dictatorial action. It is particularly offendedto find that it has no recourse of appeal and does not evenknow why its pastor is suspended.When I was a member of Trinity Lutheran Church in Skokie,Illinois, the pastor was accused of heresy. Dr. Frederick Schiotz,President of the ALC, came to our congregation. He called ameeting of the congregation’s board, open to interested mem-bers of the congregation. He explained fully the nature of thecharges and their gravity. He explained how they would beinvestigated and allowed the congregation to express opinions.The congregation felt good about the process and knew thatit was consulted and involved. The pastor was cleared of thecharges but even if he had been removed by disciplinary action,the congregation would have felt that it had been done fairlyand that they had been consulted. This contrasts sharply withwhat has happened under the ELCIC’s Constitution.The Bylaws should be amended so that the congregationis given a part to play in the discipline of the pastor that ithas called. In many cases, perhaps most, the congregation willbe involved in disciplinary action inasmuch as the charges willhave come from the congregation in the first place. However,the Constitution allows, even in such cases, for the disciplinaryprocess to go forward without the congregation being furtherinvolved. For both theological reasons and for practical rea-sons, the congregation ought to have the constitutional rightto be involved in disciplinary procedures of pastors whom ithas called.The flow of financial funds, as described above, is a limi-tation on the power of the congregation. Some congregations,I know, would prefer to send funds to both the synod andto the national church. Many people in the congregations to-day are dismayed to see world missions and social concernsdeprived of their executive directors. Such people would liketo decide what proportion of their funds should go to the Na-tional Church rather than leaving the division of the funds tono Consensusthe Synod. This seems to be a serious limitation on the powerof the congregations.It was often said in the Merger Commission that it was notwriting the Constitution in stone. It could always be changedby the Church. That is often easier said than done. The ELCIChas made some changes in the Constitution but mostly theyhave amounted to tinkering rather than to major surgery. Hasthe time come for major surgery?NOTES^ The Commission responsible for the formation of the EvangelicalLutheran Church In Canada.2 The ELCIC was formed in 1985 through the merger of the Canadian sec-tions of two North American Lutheran Churches, the Lutheran Churchin America and the American Lutheran Church. The Canadian sec-tion of the latter had already acted to become an autonomous Cana-dian Church in 1960, naming itself the Evangelical Lutheran Church ofCanada.^ Geographical units in the ELCIC are called Synods. The five Synods areBritish Columbia, Alberta and the Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitobaand Northwestern Ontario, and Eastern (which extends from ThunderBay, Ontario to Halifax, Nova Scotia). Each Synod is divided into anumber of Conferences.The Book of Concord^ edited and translated by Theodore G. Tappert(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959) 32.5 E.g., Ibid. 331-332.

Reconsidering: The Church\u27s Constitution

Scholars Commons

Consensus
Volume 21
Issue 1 Women and Men in Theological Education:
Exploring the Present, Creating the Future
Article 12
5-1-1995
Reconsidering: The Church's Constitution
William Edward Hordern
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus
This Studies and Observations is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Consensus by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.
Recommended Citation
Hordern, William Edward (1995) "Reconsidering: The Church's Constitution," Consensus: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 , Article 12.
Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol21/iss1/12
Reconsidering
The Church’s Constitution
William Hordern
President Emeritus,
Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon
As a member of the Merger Commission 1, I was asked to
write this article to answer the question: “In light of the expe-
rience of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC),
where do you think the Commission could have improved its
Constitution?”
With the advantage of hindsight it is never difficult to see
where improvements could have been made. It is one thing
to sit around a table, as the Merger Commission did, to plan
a church. It is quite another thing to see a church in action.
Nonetheless, I would like to begin by saying that I do believe
that the Merger Commission did many things that were right.
For example, since the ELCIC came into being in 1985, it has
lost only a handful of congregations and most of these were
already considering leaving their church before the merger. If
one studies the history of church mergers, it is evident that
most of them have resulted in the loss of many more congre-
gations. The Merger Commission can take satisfaction from
doing many things right.
Recent events have displayed a major weakness in the way
in which the ELCIC was constituted. The May 1994 issue of
Canada Lutheran, the national magazine of the ELCIC, re-
ported that, because of financial reasons, the National Council
of the ELCIC had to make severe cuts to programs. The po-
sitions of the Executive directors of the Divisions for Church
and Society and World Mission were eliminated. A cutback in
funds for the division boards means that they will meet only
once a year. These actions cannot but result in a serious decline
in the programs and mission of the ELCIC.
In large part, this situation results from the failure of the
Merger Commission to constitute a strong national church.
104 Consensus
The synods obviously have more power than the national
church. One might even argue that we built five churches
rather than one. Ted Jacobson, President of the Evangeli-
cal Lutheran Church of Canada 2^ argued again and again in
the Merger Commission that we needed to build a strong na-
tional church. The response to him was that we wanted to
build a strong church at every level—national, synodical and
congregational. But the national church has not proved to be
strong.
There are several reasons for this. The Merger Commission
set up five Synods. The size of ELCIC’s membership makes
this unrealistic. Synod offices are expensive to run and the
small constituency of the ELCIC cannot afford five of them. If
there had been fewer Synods, many of the functions performed
by Synods could be handled by the Conferences^. This would
be less expensive since Conferences do not operate with full-
time employees. Other churches have operated successfully on
this basis. At one point the Commission seriously considered
having only two Synods, one in the East and one in the West.
In light of history, this idea has considerable merit.
The Commission also decided that the flow of financial
funds should go from congregations to Synods to the National
Church. This has resulted in Synods cutting back on the funds
sent to the National Church in order to preserve synodical pro-
grams. The same issue of Canada Lutheran reported that dur-
ing the years 1986 to 1992 congregational income increased by
27%, synodical income increased by 9% while the income sent
to the National Church decreased by 5%. Control of finances
results in power and thus the Synods are more powerful than
the National Church.
Faced with the cutbacks to the National Church, Bishop
Telmor Sartison (the national Bishop), expressed the serious-
ness of the problem. He said, “It comes down to the issue of
mission and ministry. Are we a people in mission? Are we sent
and going?”
When the Merger Commission was designing the ELCIC
it would have been easy to reduce the number of Synods but
today that will be very difficult to do. Once a Synod has come
into being inevitably it is motivated to defend its own turf. The
same issue of Canada Lutheran that reported the financial cut-
backs also reported that the Manitoba-Northwestern Ontario
Constitution 105
Synod voted down a proposal that would only have explored
the implications of a merger with the Saskatchewan Synod. A
similar attitude can be expected from the other Synods.
Another problem has to do with the bishops. The Com-
mission desired to have bishops serve as “pastors to the pas-
tors”. This was an important reason for naming them “bish-
ops” rather than “presidents”. The term “bishop”, it was ar-
gued, is an ecclesiastical term whereas “president” is a secular
term. The term “bishop” was to signify the pastoral nature of
the office.
Inasmuch as the bishops play an important role in the call-
ing of pastors, there was an obvious problem. Would pastors
be ready to bring their problems to a person who has consid-
erable power over where they may be called, or even whether
they will be called at all?
But the Constitution made it even more difficult for bish-
ops to act as pastors to pastors. The problem is in 111:12 of
the Bylaws. Items a-f outline the normal procedure for disci-
pline of an ordained minister. The Synod bishop shall, upon
learning of reasons for discipline, “investigate such matters,
counsel with the minister and seek to remove any cause for
complaint” . If counselling fails, the bishop may appoint an in-
vestigating committee. The bishop is to be a member of the
investigating committee. This committee decides whether or
not there should be a disciplinary committee which may call for
censure and admonition by the bishop or by the Synod council
or suspension or removal from the clergy roster.
This procedure gives a central role to the bishop in matters
of discipline. The bishop is named as the one to investigate
charges, and to both appoint and serve on the investigating
committee. Can pastors see as their pastor one who has such
powers of disciplinary action?
Section 12 h makes matters even worse. It allows the bishop
to suspend the pastor before the charges are investigated or
handled by the investigating and disciplinary committees. It
names certain situations under which this procedure may be
followed: “obvious heresy or flagrant immorality, or if the ac-
cused shall have admitted guilt or absconded”.
These seem fairly logical. But the item goes on to say, “If
the circumstances are such that, in the opinion of the bishop
106 Consensus
of the synod, the church would suffer injury if the accused
||
continued to exercise the office of the ordained ministry dur- |
ing the progress of the disciplinary procedure, the bishop may ^
immediately suspend the accused....” This provision gives the
bishop the absolute power to act unilaterally and suspend a
pastor. Later, there will be a disciplinary hearing, but when
such action has been taken by the bishop, there is an obvious
implication of guilt already established. The pastor is likely to |
feel it is a matter of “We shall give you a fair trial and then you i
will be hanged”. The bishops themselves should be reluctant
to see this article retained. Action under it leaves the bishop
open to legal action. If indeed the situation is this serious,
surely some committee should be able to act and bear the re-
sponsibility for it. However, the presence of this power in the
hands of the bishop makes it most unlikely that pastors will
conhde in the bishop as their pastor when they have serious
problems.
In practice bishops have often acted as pastors to pastors.
'
But where this has occurred, it has been in spite of the con-
i
stitutional powers given to bishops. And it is certain that the
constitutional powers have kept many other pastors from turn-
|
ing to a bishop for pastoral help.
|
If we had wanted the bishops to be administrators and disci- I
plinarians, then the constitution makes some sense although it i
should not have given such autocratic powers to bishops. This ^
would, of course, fit in with the historic meaning of the term
|
“bishop”. But if that is what we wanted we should not have
talked so much about the bishops as pastors to the pastors.
p
When the Merger Commission was meeting, we were not as I
sensitive to individual rights as we are today. As a result, the
if
constitution does not protect the rights of an accused pastor I
in a satisfactory manner. :
There are problems with the investigating and disciplinary
committees in the Constitution. The investigating committee
is appointed by the bishop. The disciplinary committee is ap-
pointed by the Synod Council and the bishop of the Church.
In secular law the accused, through his or her lawyer, has the
right to veto certain suggested jurors. Our Constitution does
not give the accused pastor any right to challenge the appoint-
ment of the committee members who act as the jury in the
case.
j
Constitution 107
In the case of the investigating committee, the bishop acts
both to bring the charges and to appoint those who will hear
them. And the bishop is a member of the investigating com-
j
mittee. This is a conflict of interest. The bishop acts as the
prosecuting attorney and also serves on the jury. Inasmuch
as the disciplinary committee is chosen by the Synod Council
and the bishop of the Church, there is less obvious conflict of
I
interest. But in both cases the accused ought to have a right
^ to challenge appointees that may have reason to be biased to-
wards the accused.
It might be argued that in a Christian church such biases
are out of place. They are. But, as Luther saw so clearly, the
i
Christian is always at one and the same time both justified
I
and sinful. An accused pastor certainly should have the same
I right as an accused person in a secular court has to reject any
appointee whom he or she believes would be biased.
The Lutheran Confessions give a central place to the con-
gregations. The church is defined in the Augsburg Confession
i as “the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is
( preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are adminis-
I tered according to the Gospel”. ^ This means that the congre-
gation is the primary form of the church’s existence because it
« is the place where normally believers assemble for the preach-
I ing of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.
3 There are also practical reasons for the primacy of the con-
I gregation. All other levels of the church are supported, finan-
i dally and otherwise, by the congregations. Therefore, one of
t the major concerns of the Reformers was that the congrega-
I
tion should have the right to call its pastor(s).^ Ordination of
(
pastors should come only after the call.
The Constitution of the ELCIC is basically in keeping with
this but at some points there are problems. Article VI section
I affirms the power of the congregations to call pastors but it
adds “after consulting with the bishop of the synod”. This cre-
ates questions as to authority. What the Merger Commission
had in mind was that the bishop’s office is a clearing house for
calls. It is aware of which pastors might be open to a call and
it is aware of the abilities of pastors and the need of congrega-
tions. In most cases, the congregation is happy to have such
help.
108 Consensus
Nonetheless, as written, the Constitution can be interpreted
to mean that the bishop gives the congregation the permis-
|
sion to call. This would be contrary to the Confessions which
clearly affirm that it is not the bishop but God who gives the
congregation the right to call. I was a member of a congrega-
tion of the American Lutheran Church that decided to set up
its own search committee to find a pastor. The district pres- i
ident was deeply offended at not having first been consulted.
But the ALC constitution did not prohibit the action of the i
congregation. Would this be permissible under the ELCIC
|
- Constitution?
j
Recently I spoke with a layperson who was deeply concerned
j
about the call procedure in his congregation. The Call Com-
j
mittee met with the bishop and one candidate was selected,
j
The congregation was given only the option of voting yes or
|
not to the selected pastor. The layperson said, “In the former
||
USSR the Communist Party selected candidates and the peo-
ple could only vote yes or no. We called this an example of
undemocratic and dictatorial action. What do we call it when
the same thing occurs in the Lutheran church?” Obviously, if
we are to preserve the Reformers’ concern that the congrega-
tion has the right to call its pastor, the congregation must have
a greater opportunity to make the decision.
The March, 1994 issue of Canada Lutheran had an article
about unemployed pastors. Letters to later issues indicate that
this is not an isolated problem. Why are these pastors unem-
ployed? The ELCIC has a great many vacant parishes. If more
congregations took the initiative to search out pastors for call
would it relieve this situation?
The ELCIC Constitution makes it clear that ordination de-
pends upon a person having received a call which, in most
cases, comes from a congregation. However, the disciplinary
process for pastors does not give the congregation any right
to be involved in the disciplinary process. This is a serious
limitation upon the power of the congregation.
I know of a congregation that was deeply angered when the
bishop (acting under article III section 12, h. of the Bylaws
described above) suspended a pastor without any consultation
with the congregation. When members of the congregation
asked to whom they could appeal the action, they were told
that they could not appeal it. The congregation was split as
Constitution 109
a result and some members left not only the congregation but
also the ELCIC.
In practice, as this case demonstrates, a congregation is
angered when its chosen pastor is removed without it having
any way of being involved in the decision. It feels that it has
been bypassed by dictatorial action. It is particularly offended
to find that it has no recourse of appeal and does not even
know why its pastor is suspended.
When I was a member of Trinity Lutheran Church in Skokie,
Illinois, the pastor was accused of heresy. Dr. Frederick Schiotz,
President of the ALC, came to our congregation. He called a
meeting of the congregation’s board, open to interested mem-
bers of the congregation. He explained fully the nature of the
charges and their gravity. He explained how they would be
investigated and allowed the congregation to express opinions.
The congregation felt good about the process and knew that
it was consulted and involved. The pastor was cleared of the
charges but even if he had been removed by disciplinary action,
the congregation would have felt that it had been done fairly
and that they had been consulted. This contrasts sharply with
what has happened under the ELCIC’s Constitution.
The Bylaws should be amended so that the congregation
is given a part to play in the discipline of the pastor that it
has called. In many cases, perhaps most, the congregation will
be involved in disciplinary action inasmuch as the charges will
have come from the congregation in the first place. However,
the Constitution allows, even in such cases, for the disciplinary
process to go forward without the congregation being further
involved. For both theological reasons and for practical rea-
sons, the congregation ought to have the constitutional right
to be involved in disciplinary procedures of pastors whom it
has called.
The flow of financial funds, as described above, is a limi-
tation on the power of the congregation. Some congregations,
I know, would prefer to send funds to both the synod and
to the national church. Many people in the congregations to-
day are dismayed to see world missions and social concerns
deprived of their executive directors. Such people would like
to decide what proportion of their funds should go to the Na-
tional Church rather than leaving the division of the funds to
no Consensus
the Synod. This seems to be a serious limitation on the power
of the congregations.
It was often said in the Merger Commission that it was not
writing the Constitution in stone. It could always be changed
by the Church. That is often easier said than done. The ELCIC
has made some changes in the Constitution but mostly they
have amounted to tinkering rather than to major surgery. Has
the time come for major surgery?
NOTES
^ The Commission responsible for the formation of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church In Canada.
2 The ELCIC was formed in 1985 through the merger of the Canadian sec-
tions of two North American Lutheran Churches, the Lutheran Church
in America and the American Lutheran Church. The Canadian sec-
tion of the latter had already acted to become an autonomous Cana-
dian Church in 1960, naming itself the Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Canada.
^ Geographical units in the ELCIC are called Synods. The five Synods are
British Columbia, Alberta and the Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba
and Northwestern Ontario, and Eastern (which extends from Thunder
Bay, Ontario to Halifax, Nova Scotia). Each Synod is divided into a
number of Conferences.
The Book of Concord^ edited and translated by Theodore G. Tappert
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959) 32.
5 E.g., Ibid. 331-332.


https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1702&amp;context=consensus

Reconsidering: The Church\u27s Constitution

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons