# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S186
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

186

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

and that the result was non-renewal.
Adopted May 5–6, 2017

••

Const. Art. XI B 1 does not list individual ordained
and commissioned ministers of the districts, as does
Const. XII 7; moreover, Const. Art. XI B 1 includes
only “doctrine and administration,” while Const.
Art. XII 7 includes life in addition to doctrine and
administration of office. Thus, it is held, the President
of the Synod has no ecclesiastical supervision over a
member of the Synod. Here CCM Ag. 1970 and Op.
03-2338, 03-2338A, 03-2338C, 03-2354, 10-2581, 132669 and 15-2570 [sic 15-2750] are cited in support of
the request’s proposed interpretation.

••

Const. Art. XI gives, it is held, no specific authority
to the Synod President to suspend (as does Const.
Art. XII 8)—this, it is proposed, is part of the
broader ecclesiastical supervision given only (it is
proposed) to district presidents. Furthermore, it is
noted that the Const. Art. XI B 2 duties of the President include seeing to, admonishing, and reporting,
but not suspending.

••

On the basis of Const. Articles XI A 1 and XIV, it is
argued that because the President has no explicit constitutional authority to suspend or expel members,
the bylaws cannot confer upon him such a right.

••

Finally, it is argued that the commission fundamentally misread 1956 Bylaw 5.23 and Res. 6-11, the
argument being that the provision there provided applied only to the expulsion of a district president and
not to the expulsion of other members of the Synod.

Request for Reconsideration
of Op. 16-2791 (17-2828)
The commission met by phone conference as arranged during its meeting of May 5–6, with all members attending, to finalize Op. 17-2828 and to address two other items of business
(below). The opinion of the commission in Op. 17-2828 is as
follows:
A district president, later joined by others, requested the
commission’s reconsideration of CCM Op. 16-2791, entitled
“Constitutionality of Historical Appeal to President and Praesidium in Expulsion Cases.” A district president requested, was
granted, and made an appearance before the commission, under
Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [a]. The Council of Presidents was notified of the
request for opinion under Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b], and several other
members of the council submitted written comment. All of this
was gratefully received and carefully considered by the commission. The request lists three questions and proposes three answers, to which the commission responds as follows:
Question 1: What empowerment does the Synod Constitution give the Synod President as compared to the
district presidents in ecclesiastical supervision,
suspension, and/or expulsion of an [individual]4
member of the Synod?
Background: Briefly, Op. 16-2791 dealt with the question:
“In the event that a district president did not take action in matters of expulsion, was the process operative in the Bylaws between 1956 and 2004, enabling the President of the Synod or
the Praesidium of the Synod to initiate proceedings and present
charges in an expulsion matter, in violation of the Constitution
of the Synod?” While finding that the transfer of this authority
from the President to the Praesidium in 1989 “unconstitutionally deprived the President of the Synod of procedures for exercising a power granted him in Constitution Art. XI B 1–3,”
with respect to the 1956–1989 provision, the commission ruled:
“That this power to receive appeals for action, in case of the
inaction of district officials, is one of the means constitutionally
‘at [the President’s] command to promote and maintain unity of
doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod’ (Constitution Art. XI B 3) was the opinion of the Synod in convention in
1956. It expressed this opinion explicitly and with its unique and
final interpretive power. It must therefore be the opinion also of
this commission.”
The request for reconsideration of Op. 16-2791 argues variously that the President of the Synod cannot initiate formal procedures to expel (that is, in terms of present procedures, cannot
suspend) a member from the Synod, in summary:
••

Const. Art. III 8–9, seeking “evangelical supervision, counsel, and care” and “protection … and the
maintenance of [congregations’, pastors’, teachers’,
and other church workers’] rights,” taken together
with the requirement of “previous futile admonition”
in Const. Art. XIII 1 (it is apparently argued) require
suspension to be carried out only by that ecclesiastical supervisor having direct ecclesiastical supervision
of a member.

2019 Convention Workbook

Opinion: The commission, having given careful consideration
to the arguments advanced in the request for reconsideration, but having found no reason to overturn its previous Op.
16-2791 or the conclusion of the 1956 convention, which is
certainly as Op. 16-2791 understands it, responds as follows:

1. The Meaning of 1956 Bylaw 5.23 and Res.
6-11 and their Constitutional Context
The request for reconsideration argues that the
commission fundamentally misread 1956 Res.
6-11, by which the convention adopted the language of 1956 Bylaw 5.23 (to wit, that “If the
District officers fail to act, the President of Synod, by virtue of the power given him in the Constitution [Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3] may on his own
initiative institute proceedings, take administrative action, and, if necessary, present charges to
the District Board of Appeals”), as allowing the
President of the Synod to lay charges against
members other than a district president. The
commission notes, however, the rationale paragraph from 1956 Res. 6-11 (already included in
the text of CCM Op. 16-2791):
Whereas, It is necessary to clarify Article XI, B,
1, 2, 3, concerning the powers of the President if
District officers fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for service of pastors, professors, or teachers; therefore be it Resolved, That Section 5.23
be amended to read as follows … (1956 Proceedings, p. 451; emphasis added)