# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2019_S209
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

I. OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
B. SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION
5.11 Notification of Accusation
When a member of the Synod is accused of an act or of
conduct which could result in expulsion from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution, the accusation shall be
addressed in writing to the President of the District in which
said member holds membership. The District President shall
promptly inform such member that such an accusation has
been made against him. If the member consents to the expulsion, the District President shall publish such fact in the official
periodical of the Synod and shall so report to the next District
convention.
5.13 Commencing an Action of Expulsion
If a member of the Synod, accused of an act or of conduct
which could result in expulsion from the Synod under Article
XIII of the Constitution, does not consent to such expulsion,
the District President, in consultation with the District VicePresidents, may suspend the member, provided, however, that
the member shall have been given written notice of the proposed
suspension 15 days in advance of the effective date thereof, during which the said member may ask the District President to
reconsider on the ground that adequate informal settlement efforts (Section 5.03 b) have not been made. Within 7 days after
the effective date of such suspension, the District President shall
submit the case to the District Commission of Adjudication for
adjudication in accordance with the provisions hereinafter set
forth. In the event that the District President is disqualified or
unable to act, the First Vice-President or the next qualified District officer shall be authorized to suspend and to submit the
case to the Commission of Adjudication as herein provided.
If the District officers fail to act, the President of the Synod, by virtue of the power given him in the Constitution (Article
XI, B, 1–3, inclusive), may on his own initiative institute proceedings, take administrative action, and, if necessary, present
charges to the appropriate District Commission of Adjudication, provided, however, that such must be in the same manner
as hereinabove set forth for the District officers.
6. From 1956–1965, it was not understood as contrary to
Const. Art. XIII 2 for the President of the Synod to present
charges to a district board of appeals. Suspension (at that time)
did not precede but followed the decision of the district board
of appeals. This suspension could then be appealed to the district and Synod conventions. Though initiated by the President
of the Synod, the process ultimately resulted in expulsion “by
the district[s] of the Synod.” Suspension was to be initiated by
presidents; expulsion was finally the realm of conventions and
then the adjudication system.
Interestingly, however, expulsion cases regarding pastors,
professors, and teachers “which [arose] in connection with activities directly under the control of the Synod” could be initiated by the President of the Synod and members suspended
and ultimately expelled at the Synod level, Const. Art. XIII 2
notwithstanding. (See, e.g., 1945 Bylaw VIII II b a, Handbook,
p. 35; 1949–1963 Bylaws 5.81–5.93.) That this procedure, similar to the present Bylaw section 2.15, but broader, coexisted
with the earlier Const. Art. XIII 2 suggests the relatively greater
weight of Const. Art. XI B 1–3. Where the President of the
Synod had the supervision, he had the authority, ultimately,
to initiate suspension and expulsion—and not only through a

209

district president. Perhaps this reflects the reasoning that the
Synod and district presidents hold (under Const. Art. XII 6)
fundamentally the same office, with the same powers, within
their respective spheres: the President of the Synod, over the
whole Synod, and the president of a district, within, and as appropriate to, his district.
7. German included throughout is from the 1924 Handbuch, which is exactly parallel to the English of the 1924 Handbook, the first edition in English. The German is significant for
reasons to become apparent later.
8. See the detailed treatment of this term under part 4.
9. When the 1956 provision was being effected the Committee on Constitutional Matters then understood this as a
“clarification” in the bylaws of a power pre-existing in the Constitution (the rationale of 1956 Res. 6-11, proposed by the committee, being that “It is necessary to clarify Article XI B, 1, 2, 3,
concerning the powers of the President if District officers fail to
act …” (Proceedings, p. 451, emphasis added).
10. Const. Art. XI B 1 b provides that “all such as are employed by the Synod” are also under the President’s direct supervision, although these have not historically been considered
subject to Bylaw section 2.15. They were apparently subject to
similar provisions, however, from 1945–1965 (see footnote 3).
11. The predecessor measure, 1998 and 2001 Bylaw 2.27 g,
was adopted by 1998 Res. 7-06A (1998 Proceedings, p. 149) on
similar grounds—that a means should be clarified by which the
President of the Synod could ultimately carry out his responsibility for supervision of district presidents under Const. XI B 1.
12. The commission notes that the request for reconsideration denies to the President of the Synod the power of suspension, while failing to note that the present bylaws grant this
power of suspension, in similar circumstances (where a district
president has failed to act), to a referral panel—which is nowhere in the Constitution granted a power of suspension. Importantly, though, the chief issue identified by the commission
in Op. 16-2791 and 2794 is not that an illegitimate power was
granted to the referral panels by the bylaws, but that this power
was not granted by the bylaws to the President of the Synod, as
expected by Const. Art. XI B 1–3.
13. Const. Art. XI B 8 in the 1924 Constitution, due to
the removal of the previous Const. Art. XI B 7 (relating to the
President’s signing of official documents in the name of the
Synod) in 1998.
14. On this passage, see further footnote 16.
15. At present, “suspension” is not the “optional,” stopgap measure it was in 1854, but the necessary first step of such
formal proceedings under the bylaws developed pursuant to the
modern Const. Art. XIII 1. Since 1966’s amendment of Const.
Art. XIII, the conventions of the districts and Synod have had
no direct role in deciding or hearing appeals in discipline cases;
long before that time, already, cases could not simply be brought
directly to the conventions, but had to go through other formal
proceedings first.
16. While the President of the Synod’s supervision is,
from 1864 on, described only as “over the individual districts
as such,” without the 1854 continuation, “over the pastoral
conferences, and over the individual congregations of the District
Synods,” from 1864 until at least 1899 an addendum to the Constitution read, “The Synod declared that the synodical president is directed to serve as inspector of the district presidents,
2019 Convention Workbook