# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S309 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) ~~ OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 307 that assistance can be provided at the request of the party or parties, but it would not be proper to intrude oneself into the dispute. In response to the questions subsumed under question B, the commisston offers the following response. 1. The intent of the drafters of the Bylaw was that Bylaw 8.21 f is to apply to formal mediation efforts, not to informal efforts. This process as envisioned follows the pattern outlined in Matthew 18, where the two parties in an informal effort to resolve differ- ences are to confront each other face-to-face without the in- volvement of others. It does not allow for widening the dispute by bringing others into it. N Bylaw 8.21 f is understood to apply to formal mediation and reconciliation efforts. It should be noted that if the parties cannot resolve their differences informally, in keeping with the pattern of Matthew 18, they are to try to resolve their differences with the help of a fellow Christian or several Christians. This is ac- complished under the dispute resolution process when the two parties meet with a duly appointed reconciler. Once again, it is understood that those involved are the two parties and the rec- onciler, although, with the approval of the reconciler each party may, in the manner described in Matthew 18, bring one or two persons to the meeting “so that every matter may be established by their testimony.” In Bylaw 8.21 f the point at which assistance may be sought is at the time a matter is presented for hearing by a Dispute Resolu- tion Panel. This understanding is reflected in the Rules of Pro- cedure which were prepared at the direction of a 1995 synodical resolution and which were approved by the President and Board of Directors as provided in 1995 Res. 7-03B. 3. Yes, as indicated above, it applies to a hearing before a Dispute Resolution Panel. 4. In view of what has been stated, Bylaw 8.21 f would not apply to all phases of a mediation and reconciliation effort, but only to that stage which involved the hearing before a Dispute Reso- lution Panel. Adopted Aug. 28, 1996 Authority of Lutheran Church Extension Fund In a letter to the commission, a District President had posed the following questions: !. The articles of incorporation for the Lutheran Church Extension Fund (LCEF) make no provision for loans to foreign partner churches of the LCMS. In view of this may LCEF make such loans? 2. If such loans are considered, is it mandatory for LCEF to consult with the President of the Synod prior to making such a loan, since the Bylaws of the Synod designate the President of the Synod as the chief ecumenical officer of the Synod? 3. If changes are made in the articles of incorporation or bylaws of LCEF without reporting such changes to the Synod, and with- out a review by the Commission on Constitutional Matters (syn- odical Handbook, Bylaw 3.905), may LCEF operate with the amended articles of incorporation or such bylaw amendments? In response, the commission offered the following opinion: While it is true that articles of incorporation do not make provision for loans to partner churches of the LCMS, neither do they forbid them. The objective of the LCEF as stated in Bylaw 3.393 is the “financing of the acquisition of sites and the erection of facilities to aid expansion for effective programs of ministry, witness, outreach, and service of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.” It is quite possible that within that broad objective the witness and outreach of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod might be aided through the provision of financing for certain sites or facilities of partner churches. In response to your first question then, while expressing the caution that any loans which are made to partner churches must fall within the general objective stated in Bylaw 3.393, the commission does not find that such Ioans are either explicitly permitted or prohibited. It may be that while loans for sites or facilities are not made to partner churches directly, the same objec- tive of assisting partner churches may be achieved if such loans are made to the Synod, which grants funds to partner churches under con- ditions of repayment. The response to your second question is an unconditional yes. Be- cause of the synodical President's responsibility under Bylaw 3.101, f and g, as well as that referenced in Bylaw 3.925 a 2, no relations with partner churches are to be undertaken without the knowledge and con- sent of the President. The response to your third question is an unqualified no. The By- laws are very explicit, as you have noted, in Bylaw 3.905 f as well as 3.187, requiring review by the Commission on Constitutional Matters and giving it the authority to require ainendments to bring articles of incorporation of synodical entities into conformity with the Constitu- tion and Bylaws of the Synod. Consequently, it is clear that changes may not be made in the articles of incorporation of LCEF without such review although it is not stated that such changes need to be reported to the Synod. The important point is that such changes may not be made nor may the LCEF operate under such changes unless they have had the necessary approval, Adopted Aug. 28, 1996 Dispute Resolution Procedure Questions A pastor and the board of elders of a congregation had posed a number of questions for consideration by the Commission on Con- stitutional Matters, the majority of which related to use of the dis- pute resolution process. The final two questions which were posed related to the possible suspension and removal of a congregation or pastor publicly teaching that woman suffrage is contrary to the Scriptures. The questions and response provided by the Commis- sion on Constitutional Matters are as follows: 1. Bylaw 8.05 states that: “Before any matter is submitted to the formal reconciliation process, the parties involved in a dispute must meet together face-to-face, on a good-faith attempt to set- tle their dispute (Matt. 18:15). Where there has been no such face-tu-face meeting, to what extent may a reconciler appointed under Bylaw 8.07 a and b do anything? If so, what? Also, does “must” as used in Bylaw 8.05 mean “shall? The reconciler is authorized to determine whether the face-to- face meeting has taken place between the parties involved. If it has not, he may direct them to do so. The word must does mean shall. 2. Where a layman challenges removal from congregational mem- bership by invoking the reconciliation processes of chapter VIII of the LCMS Bylaws. is our understanding correct that the only access of such a layman to chapter VIII reconciliation processes is on “procedural questions involved in excommunication cases” as is provided in Bylaw 8.13 b 1? Yes, the matter to be dealt with in excommunication cases is proper procedure. If there are doctrinal or theological issues in- volved, the District President has the responsibility for ecclesi- astical supervision. 3. Is our understanding correct that a reconciler and a Dispute Res- olution Panel are limited in such cases to procedural questions involved in an excommunication case and may not inquire about nor evaluate the “merits” of nor the “justness” of the reasons for an excommunication? It is difficult to separate procedure from the “justness” of the reasons for excommunication. Consequently, it is extremely im- portant that proper procedure be affirmed, but also that such pro- cedures are not utilized as a mere “show of right,” that is, that merely because proper procedures are followed, other issues are of no importance. 4. Bylaw 8.07 states: “d. If informal reconciliation efforts do not resolve the matter, the reconciler shall direct the respondent to submit to the reconciler and the complainant a written reply re- sponding to the statement of the matter in dispute.” May a rec- onciler during and as part of the informal reconciliation stage direct the respondent to prepare and exchange with the com- plainants a document regarding actions which it took? While the reconciler may not require this, he could legitimately urge that this be done to aid the two parties in identifying the is- sues and in stating positions so that they can more easily and profitably discuss their differences at the face-to-face level and attempt to seek a solution to them.