# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S174
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

APPENDICES TO REPORTS

174
R58

I. Opinions of Commission
on Constitutional Matters
Discussion of Correspondence (16-2793)
A member of the Synod sent a lengthy letter to the commission (and to others in the Synod) regarding his concerns
with CCM Op. 16-2791. The letter made a number of assertions
and accused the commission of not following proper procedures
and of failing to do adequate research in reaching its conclusions. It also posed questions regarding conflict(s) of interest.
The commission will address this letter under three headings:
proper procedures, adequacy of research, and the application
of Bylaw Sections 1.5.1.3, 1.5.2, and 1.5.7.
Proper Procedures: Specific mention was made of Bylaw
3.9.2.2 (b), which requires the commission to notify an officer
or agency of the Synod if a request for an opinion involves “an
activity of that officer or agency.” The request that led to Op.
16-2791 came from the chairman of a floor committee following
May 2016 floor committee meetings. The request was prompted
as a result of discussion at the May floor committee meeting,
when a question was raised as to the constitutionality of a practice that had been operative in the Synod from 1956 until 2004,
the reinstatement of a portion of which was being contemplated
in a proposed resolution. The specific question addressed to the
CCM was regarding the constitutionality of these historical
practices between 1956 and 2004, which were no longer in place.
Because the question posed to the commission pertained to the
constitutionality of a past practice of the Synod, and not to a
present activity of an officer or agency, the commission determined that Bylaw 3.9.2.2 (b) did not apply.
Adequacy of Research: The letter also made assertions regarding the adequacy of research used by the commission in
Op. 16-2791. Specific reference was made to the introductory
floor committee remarks preceding the introduction of 2004
Res. 8-01A, which significantly changed the suspension and expulsion process of the Synod. In those remarks it was stated:
“Specifically regarding paragraph g, the study group raised the
question whether the President of the Synod is granted authority in the Constitution to suspend or expel a District President
or anyone else from the roster of Synod” (2004 Proceedings, p.
161). The introduction goes on to state that references to the
Praesidium should be eliminated since the vice-presidents of
the Synod are not given the role of ecclesiastical supervision.
(By way of explanation, neither the President of the Synod nor
the district presidents have ever had the power to expel from
the Synod. They only had authority to suspend, which started
a process that could lead to expulsion. Over the course of its
history, the Synod has used a variety of processes to finally determine expulsion.)
The reference in the introduction was to 2001 Bylaw 2.27
(g), which reads:
Because the President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all District Presidents, the
President of the Synod shall proceed in the same
fashion as a District President if he receives a
complaint relative to a District President. In
cases under this subparagraph the synodical
President shall not participate as a member of
2019 Convention Workbook

the Praesidium (section a, 1 and b). If disqualified for the reasons set forth in section b, the next
qualified officer of the Synod shall function in
the place of the President.
The study group was composed of four district presidents,
and while the study group raised the question as to the constitutionality of the President of the Synod having authority to suspend a district president, the proposals as they were presented
in Resolution 8-01A and adopted by the convention actually did
the opposite and affirmed the authority of the President of the
Synod to suspend a district president. While 2001 Bylaw 2.27 (g)
was eliminated, the same function was incorporated under 2004
Bylaw Section 2.15, which specifically enables the President of
the Synod to suspend a district president or officer of the Synod,
and gives him the sole responsibility to do so. In addition, the
new section of the 2004 bylaws spelled out the process in detail.
By adopting these significant Bylaw revisions in 2004, the
Synod did not in any way comment on the constitutionality of
the practice that had been in place from 1956–1989, which the
1956 convention determined was inherent in Article XI B 1–3.
The conclusion of CCM Op. 16-2791, that the 1956–1989
provision providing the mechanism of appeal to the President
of the Synod in the case of inaction of district officials and enabling him to act was an organic clarification in the bylaws of
a power the Constitution already granted the President under
Constitution Article XI B 1–3, is consistent with and reflects the
long-standing position of the Synod.
While the original 1847 constitution did not address the
matter of suspension, the actions of a certain Pastor Pöschke,
one of the original members of the Synod, prompted President Walther to consult with the St. Louis Pastor Conference
and then suspend him from membership in the Synod prior to
the 1849 convention. The 1849 Synod Convention concurred
with President Walther’s action and remedied the situation by
adopting an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing the
president of the Synod to suspend a member until the next
convention, which would then take action, either expelling from
the Synod or lifting the suspension. It was reported to the 1850
convention that this amendment had been ratified by all the
congregations of the Synod.
When the Synod divided into districts in 1854, virtually identical supervision wording was used for the duties and
authority of both the district presidents and the President of
the Synod. Article VI E 1 of the 1854 constitution specifically
placed the supervision of the doctrine and practice of synodical
officers, all pastors and teachers of the entire synod, the individual districts, the pastoral conferences and the congregations
of the Synod into the hands of the president of the Synod, who
was charged, if at all possible, to visit each. At the same time,
the authority to temporarily suspend an individual member or a
congregation was given to the district presidents. The assumption seemed to be that the district presidents were the agents
of the President of the Synod and would take care of it. In
the event that the President of the Synod became aware of a
problem, he would generally refer the matter to the appropriate
district president for action. By the time of the publication of
the first edition of the Synod Handbook in 1873, the wording in
the section on the duties of the Synod President had changed
somewhat. Specific reference to the Synod President’s direct
supervision of all pastors, teachers, and congregations of the