# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S312
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

310 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

cerned. The Synod, being an advisory body, recognizes the
right of the congregation to be the judge of the applicability of
the resolution to its local condition. However, in exercising
such judgment, a congregation must not act arbitrarily, but in
accordance with the principles of Christian love and charity.

c. While retaining the right of brotherly dissent, members of the
Synod are expected as part of the life together within the syn-
odical fellowship to honor and to uphold the resolutions of
the Synod. If such resolutions are of a doctrinal nature, dis-
sent is to be expressed first within the fellowship of peers,
then brought to the attention of the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations before finding expression as an over-
ture to the convention calling for revision or recision. While
the conscience of the dissenter shall be respected, the con-
sciences of others, as well as the collective will of the Synod,
shall also be respected.

In response to your third question, the commission concludes that
under circumstances noted above, neither the dissenter nor the Synod
changing positions after all dissent procedures have been exhausted, the
position of the dissenter would still not be divisive providing that the
dissenting position is not taught publicly. To so teach publicly that the
position of the Synod is contrary to the Scriptures would be to elevate a
matter of human opinion to the level of Scriptural doctrine—which
from the viewpoint of the Synod would be contrary to the Scriptures,
i.e., to declare that what the Synod has included in the category of an
open question is, in fact, a closed question (clearly prohibited in the
Scriptures). The dissenter may decline to practice woman suffrage, but
may not persist in teaching that it is contrary to the Scriptures. If per-
mitted to do so, every member of the Synod would have the right to de-
termine which of the positions of the Synod in similar matters it wished
to accept and which to reject.

A resolution relating to the issues raised was adopted by the Synod
in the Milwaukee 1971 convention. The commission would encourage a
careful reading of it as it provides a comprehensive statement of the
Synod with respect to the matter of upholding doctrinal resolutions,

Adopted Oct. 23, 1996

Dispute Resolution Panel in Excommunication Matters

A District President had asked the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters to respond to the following question:

In a case of “persons involved in excommunication,” may a
Dispute Resolution Panel be allowed in place of a District Recon-
ciler, even though Bylaw 8.13 states that District Reconcilers are to
be used “in the following situations arising in the District 1: Proce-
dural questions involved in excommunication cases”?

In answer to the question, the commission replied that

Bylaw 8.11 is nowhere designated as a situation “where the Bylaws
specifically provide” that a Dispute Resolution Panel may be appointed
to deal with the issue apart from the use of a reconciler. The general
rule is that the specific controls over the general, and Bylaw 8.13 b 1 is
specific in that it requires the use of District reconcilers in dealing with

“procedural questions involved in excommunication cases.”

In view of these factors, the commission concludes that in deal-
ing with a case of “persons involved in excommunication” the pro-
cedure involving the use of a District reconciler may not be omit-
ted.

Adopted Oct. 23, 1996

Majority Election for Circuit Counselor

A District Secretary had forwarded a request to the commission
regarding the interpretation of Bylaw 5.11 as it relates to the elec-
tion of Circuit Counselors. He stated that it was his assumption that
in the election of the Circuit Counselors. when the Handbook refers
to “the total number of votes cast on the nominating ballot” it is re-
ferring to the total number of names submitted. After a brief con-
sideration, the commission concluded that this assumption is cor-
rect.

It was further noted that the 1995 convention of the Synod
adopted a Bylaw intending to deal with problems related to the
election of Circuit Counselors. Previously Bylaw 5.11 had stated
that “every voting congregation ... shall nominate ... two pastors.”
By far the largest number of congregations either did not nominate

or nominated only one pastor. Districts noted that the Bylaw was
impractical and cumbersome and resulted in a large number of un-
resolved elections in the circuit.

In view of the concerns and the change which was made in the
Bylaw to “... either one or two individual pastors,” it is clearly the
intent that majority vote should be based on the number of individ-
ual pastoral candidate votes cast rather than on the majority of con-
gregations casting votes.

Adopted Dec. 8, 1996

Authority of Dispute Resolution Panel

A District president had forwarded a number of questions to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters. He stated that the first
question was very vital to a Dispute Resolution Panel ruling that
bore the date of Oct. 10, 1996. He stated that it does not appear to
be a proper ruling according to the Bylaws of the Synod. The ques-
tions which he raised with regard to this were:

a. Does the DRP have the authority to place a pastor on re-
stricted status as indicated in the ruling?

b. Even though the panel states on page 2: “The panel upholds
this charge as stated,” do they have the right to set up a
“counselor/overseer” procedure?

c. It appears to me that my ecclesiastical responsibility of su-
pervision has been taken away from me by the DRP. Do you
concur?

In a second question, he stated that he had previously asked the
CCM about a pastor under suspension conducting worship services
at an association school. He stated that the commission had ruled
that this would be allowed. At the request of the District Board of
Directors, he was asking the CCM to revisit this decision and
asked, “Is it appropriate to allow a pastor under suspension to con-
duct chapel in an association school?”

In a third question, he asked, ““What happens when a pastor
under suspension violates that suspension by preaching out of state
in a public gathering?”

In providing a response, the commission determined to respond
in reverse order to the questions as they had been presented. It
stated:

In response to your third question which asks, “What happens when
a pastor under suspension violates that suspension by preaching out of
state in a public gathering?” the commission repties as follows:

Dealing with the violation of suspension is the responsibility of
the District President. The violation simply constitutes another
charge, that of insubordination. as a reason for suspension and re-
moval. The District President should be able to require the sus-
pended pastor to inform him if he is asked to preach out of state in a
public gathering and that he requests permission to accept the invi-
tation.

With respect to your second question, the commission believes it
has previously provided an answer. It is the “entity” which should make
the determination as to the suspended pastor's preaching in chapel. That
entity in this case is the association of schools. Perhaps this will be help-
ful for clarification of the opinion previously forwarded to you.

Responding to your first set of concerns, the commission would
note that the matter of suspension and possible removal involves an en-
tire process and therefore does not necessarily revolve around one spe-
cific question. In view of this, the commission concludes that it does
not have sufficient information to respond to your first question in this
set.

The Commission does conclude that a Dispute Resolution Panel
cannot place a pastor on restricted status. While it may not do so or es-
tablish a counselor/overseer procedure, it has the right to recommend
that this be done in the effort to resolve the issues which led to suspen-
sion and to bring about reconciliation. Since the decision of the Dispute
Resolution Panel has now been appealed to a panel of District presi-
dents, the commission is of the opinion that any further discussion on
this issue is the responsibility of that panel. Because the final disposition
of the case is still pending, the commission does not believe it should in-
terject itself further into this matter.

Adopted Dec. 8, 1996