# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S180
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

180

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

[P]ersonal relationships would be served best by face-to-face
meetings in person.”
This response well reflects the goal and intent of the Bylaws’ faceto-face language, as expressed in Bylaw 1.10.1.2:
The words of Jesus in Matthew 18:15–20 provide the
basis for church discipline for the local congregation. The
same passage also grants Christ’s guidance to all Christians
in seeking to settle other disputes, many of which fall outside
the purview of church discipline involving the congregation.
In either case, the steps of Matthew 18 should be applied
lovingly in both formal and informal settings. Matthew 18
does not apply directly in cases of public sin, but face-to-face
meetings are required nonetheless, even in the case of public
sin, toward the goal of reconciliation and winning the brother
or sister. The parties and others attempting to effect resolution of a dispute must always remain mindful that the church
has been given the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).
Hence, conflict resolution in the church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring the erring member in a spirit of gentleness
(Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system practiced
in society.
The noted response also well interprets the Bylaws’ own definition
of face-to-face (Bylaw 1.10.4 [f]; 2.14.2 [f]) and the Bylaws’ repeated connection of such language to its root in Matt. 18:15 (e.g.,
Bylaw 1.10.5; 1.10.5 [d]; 2.14.3 [f]; 2.16.3 [c]; 3.10.5.7.9 [a]).
The requirement of a face-to-face meeting was inserted when the
current Bylaw section 1.10 process was first adopted in 1992. The
meaning of face-to-face was clarified by the 2004 convention:
Face-to-face: A meeting face-to-face, in person, between the parties in dispute following the guidelines of Matthew 18:15. Email, regular mail, fax, or telephone call (or
any combination thereof) does not satisfy this requirement.
(Note: Failure to conduct a face-to-face meeting within 30
days or within such extension as may be established by the
involved ecclesiastical supervisors shall result in dismissal if
the fault lies with the accuser or movement to the next stage
if the fault lies with the accused.) (2004 Bylaw 1.10.4 [f])
The reference to “email, regular mail, fax, or telephone call (or any
combination thereof)” was not intended to be exhaustive of insufficient means but was simply a listing of the technological alternatives of the day. It was clearly intended that the parties need to meet
together physically.

1.10.1.2). There is no allowance in these words face-to-face for a
present-day electronic meeting, which is not all that different from
the electronic means prohibited in existing bylaws (Bylaw 1.10.4
[f], etc.). Bylaws as adopted, and as they presently stand and must
be interpreted, require—except in narrowly specified exceptional
cases—an actual going to reconcile with the allegedly errant brother, an effort demonstrative of the complainant’s pursuit not only of
the respondent’s rebuke but also of repentance and reconciliation.
If, however, the Synod would like to alter the Bylaws in order to
allow for electronic meetings at all times or only in extreme cases
(with, hopefully, the facts and circumstances well defined and the
parameters clear as to what is an extreme case to be sure that the
exception does not become the rule), the Synod is certainly free so
to do.

Shared Concordia University President (19-2924)
Minutes of November 1–2, 2019
The chairman of a board of regents of a Concordia college or university inquired of the commission whether two Concordia colleges/universities could, while remaining distinct institutions and
agencies of the Synod, be served simultaneously by the same president.
Opinion: The commission does not find such a dual call to be contraindicated by the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod, provided
that the calls extended by both schools are compatible with such an
arrangement and the respective boards of regents, both of which
must approve the arrangement, are able to satisfy themselves that
the duties of a college or university president, to serve as “spiritual,
academic, and administrative head of the institution,” as further
delineated in Bylaw 3.10.6.6, are adequately provided for at both
institutions.
The Concordia University System (CUS) also has authority with
respect to the Synod’s colleges and universities, especially with
respect to their coordination (Bylaw 3.6.6.1), and a key role in arranging for their presidential transitions. While this particular circumstance is not directly contemplated in the Bylaws, the import
of such an arrangement to the governance of two of the system’s
schools would require that it be undertaken only in close consultation with CUS. The provisions of Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2, regarding the
selection of a college/university president, including the process
for prior approval, would be fully applicable to the process for each
institution. If such a possibility is contemplated, the transition review (Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2 [a]) and boards of regents’ definition of
the institutions’ needs and evaluation of characteristics of a soughtafter president (Bylaw 3.10.6.6.2 [b]) would need to address its impact, in comparison with the customary alternative.

At the same time, it also should be noted that the requirement for
a face-to-face meeting is not absolute. If one party attempts to obstruct the process by refusing to meet or creates so many conditions
for the meeting that it creates a hardship on the other party, the
ecclesiastical supervisor may make the decision to move the process to the next stage.

Board of Directors Designation or Appointment
of Representatives to Agencies (20-2925)

In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, it is this commission’s
opinion that face-to-face means what it says, namely, the physical
presence of the parties in the same place. While the Bylaws do
acknowledge that there can be specific exceptions to the requirement of a face-to-face meeting (e.g., Bylaw 2.17.3 [d], or should
the accused party utterly and demonstrably frustrate reasonable attempts by the accuser to arrange a face-to-face meeting) and admit
that Matt. 18:15 does not provide a dominical sine qua non in all
cases (e.g., in the case of public sin, Bylaw 1.10.1.2), they do require face-to-face meetings “nonetheless” in the general case, in
pursuit of “reconciliation and winning the brother or sister” (Bylaw

2019 Res. 9-09 allowed the Board of Directors to designate representatives to serve, in a capacity formerly carried out by Synod’s
Chief Financial Officer, as advisory members of the boards of the
LCMS Foundation, the Lutheran Church Extension Fund, Concordia Publishing House, and the Board of Trustees—Concordia Plans
(Board of Directors—Concordia Plan Services), including executive sessions (Bylaw 3.3.4.6 [d]). The mechanism is similar to that
by which the President designates his representation on various
boards. The board is in the process of implementing such designations, and desires to understand the full latitude within which it

2023 Convention Workbook

Minutes of April 24, 2020