# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S187
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
president or his representatives, its own volition remains. Even
where a congregation or individual member of the Synod is violating one of the conditions of membership in the Synod, the district
president cannot force the congregation or individual member to
change or follow a particular course of action. Rather, in such a
situation, when persuasion does not suffice, the district president
will ultimately need to follow the procedure for expulsion from the
Synod in Article XIII.
Question 2:

Does a district president have the ecclesiastical authority to effect the forced retirement of a called/
rostered pastor without the official involvement and
consent of the body that called that worker (i.e., the
voters’ assembly of the congregation)?

Opinion: The question seems to suggest that a district president
might himself retire a pastor. This he cannot do. A district president
may advise, admonish, or reprove a pastor or a pastor’s congregation where there is or appears to be potential cause for removal of a
pastor from office. Where a compelling circumstance exists, a district president may indicate that a failure to act, either by the congregation or by the pastor, will result in restriction of the pastor or
suspension and possible expulsion from membership in the Synod
of either the pastor or the congregation. The district president “has
and always shall have the power to advise, admonish, and reprove”
(Const. Art. XI B 3; XII 6) and exercises the ministry of ecclesiastical supervision (Bylaws 4.4.3; 1.2.1 [j]). By doing so, he does not
himself retire the pastor. The call of a pastor can be resigned by the
pastor himself or rescinded by the congregation itself (either properly and advisedly, in accord with our doctrines of Church and Ministry and of the divine call, or improperly and unadvisedly, which
would be wrong, would put its continued membership in the Synod
in jeopardy, and may result in a dispute resolution process which
could find the congregation liable). While the district president may
within his office and presuming a compelling circumstance attempt
to persuade a pastor to resign or a congregation to rescind a call, he
has no means himself to retire the pastor.
Question 3:

When a district president intervenes in an intra-congregation dispute, may the district president force
his individual will on a congregation or called pastor by his own interpretation and application of the
governing documents of the congregation?

Opinion: See the answer to Question 2 above. The district president may advise, admonish, and reprove, based on the Word of
God and his understanding of the congregation’s commitments established in its own documents. The congregation then makes its
own decision, which—if contrary to the doctrine and practice of
the Synod or to its own commitments—may result in the further
exercise of ecclesiastical supervision, the need for dispute resolution, or the congregation’s membership in the Synod being placed
in jeopardy.
Question 4:

When a district president intervenes in an intra-congregation dispute, what remedy does the congregation have if its voters’ assembly disagrees with the
district president?

Opinion: The question, while unclear in itself, relates to how the
advice given from the office of the district president is received
and acted upon by the congregation. By virtue of the congregation’s membership in the Synod, the congregation has the duty and
responsibility to give due consideration to such advice. Should
the advice of the district president be inconsistent with the Scrip-

187

tures and Confessions, that is, with the doctrine and practice of the
Synod, or inapplicable to the congregation’s situation, the congregation may, having given such advice due consideration, consider
its situation in light of the Scriptures and Confessions and do otherwise than advised, realizing that if it acts contrary to the conditions
of membership in the Synod (Const. Arts. II and VI), it places its
membership in jeopardy. Keeping in mind that one of the congregation’s primary purposes in maintaining membership in the Synod is
that it may see to the provision of proper ecclesial advice, and that
therefore such, when provided, should not be lightly dismissed, this
seems the most immediate remedy to advice that—upon due and
proper consideration—would be found to be incorrect.
Should a dispute arise between a congregation and its district president, the proper response would be to initiate the dispute resolution process as outlined in Bylaw section 1.10, the use of which is
mandated by Synod Bylaws as the process to be used in the case of
disputes between members of the Synod.
The district presidents do carry out their offices both under the ecclesiastical supervision of the President of the Synod and as elected
by their districts and responsible to their member congregations in
convention.

Prior Evidence in Bylaw Section 2.17 Hearing
Panel (20-2955)
Minutes of October 30–31, 2020
A Bylaw section 2.17 Hearing Panel by an email of Oct. 20, 2020,
and under Bylaw 2.14.7.8 (k), requested the commission’s opinion
on the following questions:
Question 1:

If a district president took no action on a previous
accusation and therefore the case was terminated, is
evidence from such previous accusation admissible
to a current case?

Opinion: When a district president receives information that requires him to consider initiating the proceedings outlined in Bylaw
section 2.17, the district president eventually has two options, to
initiate formal proceedings or to not initiate formal proceedings,
“which shall terminate the matter” (Bylaw 2.17.5), subject to other
provisions that are not relevant to this question.
When a district president receives information that initiates Bylaw
section 2.17, the district president is to “thoroughly investigate
whether the allegations of the accuser can be substantiated” (Bylaw
2.17.4 [a]). “Thoroughly investigate,” having no Bylaw definition,
is then to be interpreted by its ordinary or plain meaning. To the
commission, this means to leave no stone unturned, to look at all
relevant information, and then to weigh the information as to credibility and importance. This thorough investigation may involve
prior accusations that, due to the judgment of the ecclesiastical supervisor responsible at the time and to many reasons too numerous
to be listed here, had previously resulted in no formal proceedings.
The provision that such a conclusion shall “terminate the matter”
and that the district president responsible shall “in writing so inform the accuser, any district president involved, and the involved
member” (Bylaw 2.17.5, including subparagraph [e]; cf. Bylaws
2.14.5; 2.15.5; 2.16.5.1; 2.16.8 [d]) serves as a formal statement to
the accuser that the accusation as presented has been assessed and
a determination has been reached by the ecclesiastical supervisor
responsible that, in his judgment and upon the facts and evidence
available at the time, formal proceedings will not be initiated on the
basis of the specific accusation presented.
2023 Convention Workbook