# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S317
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 315

You also asked in question 9, “Would being in the process of rec-
onciliation (Art. VIII) suspend any action that Synod in convention
might choose to take against one practicing unionism?”

Since it is assumed that any action of the Synod would involve an
overture in one form or another to the Synod, the answer would most
likely be yes. Bylaw 3.19 c states that “Overtures with reference to a
case in which a member has been suspended or expelled and which is at
present in the process of or subject to appeal, as well as overtures which,
on the advice of legal counsel, may subject the Synod or the corporate
officers of the Synod to civil action for libel or slander, shall not be ac-
cepted for convention consideration.” Consequently, the convention
cannot act while a matter is being dealt with in the dispute process.

Finally, you asked in question 10, “Should it be necessary, what are
the proper procedures for leveling charges against a clergyman of the
Synod? Is there, for lack of a better term, a standard format?”

There is no standard format. The proper procedures are those which
are identified in Bylaw 2.27, that is, forwarding charges to the District
President. Bylaw 8.07 a provides some guidance regarding format when
it refers to “a written statement of the matter of dispute” and “a written
statement setting forth, in detail, the efforts that have been made to
achieve informal reconciliation.”

Adopted April 17, 1997

Authority of the President
in Relation to Official Periodicals

The Board for Communication Services asked the CCM for a
Tuling on the following questions:

1. Do the Constitution and/or Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod allow the President of the Synod to exercise ex-
ecutive powers when he has not been expressly invested with
such power for a specific purpose (Bylaw 3.103 b)? If not, by
whom must such power be invested in the President for him to
exercise said powers?

2. May the President, for example, exercise censorship over the
official periodicals of the Synod? If so, what are the limitations,
if any, to such authority in view of Bylaw 12.01.

3. A variety of specific examples could be cited that would be af-
fected by the issues raised above. They would not be limited to
the following, but could include these: May the President direct
that no “Letters to the Editor” be published on a given subject?
May he direct that no articles be published on a given subject?
Conversely, may he direct that an article (as opposed to an “of-
ficial notice”) on a given subject must be published? May he
direct that an article or portion of an article be published in a
specific form, with no deviation in wording or content?

Art. XI B of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod sets forth the duties and powers of the President of the
Synod. Art. XI B I sets forth the subject matter of presidential au-
thority. “The President has the supervision regarding the doctrine
and the administration ...” Those subject to this general supervision
regarding doctrine and administration comprise the following: “(a)
All officers of the Synod; (b) All such as are employed by the
Synod; (c) The individual Districts of the Synod; (d) All District
Presidents” (Art. XI B 1).

The President is required to see that aforementioned act in ac-
cordance with the Constitution of the Synod. He must admonish
“all who in any way depart from it.” If such admonition is not
heeded, he must report such cases to the Synod.

Art. XI B 3 provides that “The President has and always shall
have the power to advise, admonish, and reprove. He shall consci-
entiously use all means at his command to promote and maintain
unity of doctrine and practice in all the Districts of the Synod.”

The synodical Bylaws likewise speak to the issue of presidential
power. The President is identified as the “chief executive officer
of the Synod” (3.101 a). The President must visit Synod’s educa-
tional institutions and receive reports from the District presidents
“.. in exercising supervision over the doctrine taught in the Synod
and over the administration of the officers and employees of the
Synod” (3.101 b).

Bylaw 3.101 h specifically addresses the relationship between
synodical staff and the President. The President remains “ultimately

responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the synodical staff.
Such supervision shall be in accordance with the Constitution, By-
laws, and resolutions of the Synod, and in accordance with the de-
cisions of the boards and commissions under which the executives
serve and of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod.”

Under 3.103 a “The President shall upon request, or in the ex-
ercise of his office, give counsel and advice to those who are under
his supervision.”

The issue of presidential authority in unforeseen circumstances
is dealt with in Bylaw 3.103 c. “In the event that the affairs of the
Synod require the exercise of executive power for a purpose for
which there is no specific directive of the Synod, he shall be au-
thorized to exercise such power after consultation with the Vice-
Presidents, the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod, the Council of Presidents, or the Council of
Administrators, whichever in his judgment is the most appropri-
ate.”

The Constitution and Bylaws establish three types of limitations
on presidential power. Art. XI A | extends a general limit on all
the officers of the Synod, (including the President): “The officers of
the Synod must assume only such rights as have been expressly
conferred upon them by the Synod, and in everything pertaining to
their rights and the performance of their duties they are responsible
to the Synod.”

A parallel provision (Bylaw 3.103 b) articulates the same limi-
tation. The President “shall exercise executive power when the af-
fairs of the Synod demand it and when he has been expressly in-
vested with such power for such specific purpose.”

The CCM agrees that the President must “assume only such
rights as have been expressly conferred ... by the Synod” and
“when he has been expressly invested with such power for a spe-
cific purpose.”

These provisions must not be read, however, in isolation from
the remainder of the Constitution and Bylaws. They must be con-
sidered in pari materia. Specific enabling language mandates pres-
idential authority in the areas of doctrine and practice. He has au-
thority over administration of the officers and employees of the
Synod. He is expressly identified as the CEO of the Synod. The
President is mandated to be responsible to the Synod for the super-
vision of doctrine. While a President is prohibited from exercising
powers that have not been expressly conferred upon him, he may
exercise executive powers within framework provided by the Con-
stitution and Bylaws. The President may, for example, exercise
broad power under the express language granting him responsibil-
ity for doctrinal supervision. The Bylaws need not articulate every
heresy or aberrant doctrine that might trigger executive action. It
is implicit in the express grant of authority in the Constitution and
Bylaws to supervise doctrine.

Moreover, Bylaw 3.103 b cannot be read apart from Bylaw
3.103 c which speaks to the issue of exercising executive power
for a purpose for which there is no specific directive. The language
of the Bylaw expressly grants the President the authority to act in
unforeseen circumstances. The same provision provides a second
limitation upon unilateral exercise of executive power. Prior to
such exercise of power, the President must consult with one of the
four groups identified, namely, the Praesidium, the Board of Di-
rectors, the Council of Presidents, or the Council of Administra-
tors, whichever he judges to be most appropriate.

The provisions of Bylaw 3.103 c are intended to allow the
Synod to respond with some flexibility through the actions of its
CEO to unusual, difficult, or unforeseeable situations. It does not
allow for the untrammeled exercise of executive power. The Pres-
ident may not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. His super-
vision “shall be in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolution of Synod, and in accordance with the decisions of the
boards and commissions under which the executives serve and of
the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod”
(Bylaw 3.101 h). He is required to consult with “the Vice-Presi-
dents, the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod, the Council of Presidents, or the Council of Administrators,