# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S317
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 317

in the District President's written statement of the matter in dispute.
Bylaw 2.25 a also makes reference to “expulsion of a member from the
Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution.” It is evident, therefore,
that any action leading to expulsion from the Synod must be on the
basis of Art. XIII for reasons given there:

1. Members who act contrary to the confession laid down in Ar-

ticle II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI

or persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after previous futile admo-

nition, be expelled from the Synod.

It should be noted that the “offensive conduct” of Art. XIII ] may be
understood to include an array of serious misbehaviors, bearing in mind
that “giving offense” according to the Scriptures includes any serious
matter which causes a fellow Christian to stumble in his or her faith
(2 Cor. 6:3; 1 Cor. 10:32). It should also be noted that Bylaw 2.21 al-
lows that cause for termination of membership may include not only vi-
olations of conditions of membership but also as is “otherwise appro-
priate under the Constitution or these Bylaws.” Individual membership
in the Synod, according to Bylaw 2.39 c includes the expectation “as
part of the life together within the synodical fellowship to honor and to
uphold the resolutions of the Synod,” with dissent to be expressed in a
specific manner. Membership in the Synod, which is voluntary, there-
fore includes the expectation of compliance with the Bylaws of the
Synod, including those Bylaws that speak of participation in the Dis-
pute Resolution Process.

3. Assuming that adequate notice was given and sufficient grounds
for the suspension existed, is there any necessity for the Dispute
Resolution Panel to convene a hearing if the only issues to be re-
solved are those capable of resolution by a decision of the CCM,
or must the panel convene as a formality?

Bylaw 8.09 a clearly states that “after the chairman confers with the
parties to the dispute, the Dispute Resolution Panel shail choose a loca-
tion and a date for the formal hearing of the matter.” Again in paragraph
b: “The formal hearing before the Dispute Resolution Panel shall take
place within 60 days after the date of final selection of the panel mem-
bers” (emphasis added). You will note that the same verbage is used
throughout Bylaw 8.09, right up to the discussion of the final report of
the panel. Given the definition of “shall” in Bylaw 8.03 (“a word of
command that must always be given an imperative or compulsory
meaning”), it is clear that the panel is expected to convene a hearing.

The purposes of the hearing are also made clear. According to
Bylaw 8.09 c 1, the hearing provides important opportunity for the dis-
putants to provide witnesses to “substantiate the facts relevant to the
matter in dispute” and to have “opportunity fully to present” their re-
spective positions so that the panel will not need to assume that pre-
hearing information has been exhaustive and reliable. Even more im-
portantly, “the panel shall continue efforts to reconcile the parties on
the basis of Christian love and forgiveness,” which remains the primary
purpose of the dispute resolution process.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Clarification of the Word “Members”
in 1998 Res. 3-12A (98-21331)

In a September 29, 1998, letter, a staff member from the synod-
ical President’s office requested verification of the proper defini-
tion of the word “member” in Res. 3-12A of the 1998 convention
of the Synod, as follows:

Res. 3-12A, in the second resolve, states, “That we commend the
President of the Synod for his efforts in seeking to have these discus-
sions between members of the Synod and of RIM.”

It ts our assumption that the word “members” was used in a delib-
erate sense, that is, to refer to “members of the Synod” as defined under
the Synod’s Constitution, Art. V. ...

We wish to have the CCM’s verification that our assumption on this
point is correct, namely, the use of the word “members” in Res. 3-12A
is to be understood as the term is defined in Synod’s Constitution, Art.
V. The members of the Floor Committee that drafted this resolution
have informed us that this was their intention in making use of the word
“members.”

The Commission notes, first of all, that the above quotation of
the second resolve of Res. 3-12A is not entirely accurate and
should read, “That we commend the President of the Synod for his
efforts in seeking to have these discussions between members of
the Synod continue,” as carefully worded by the Floor Committee.

The Commission, in keeping with its duty to interpret the reso-
lutions adopted by the Synod, rules that the word “members” tn the
second resolve of 1998 Res. 3-{2A does indeed refer to members
as identified in Art. V of the Synod’s Constitution:

Membership in the Synod is held and may be acquired by congre-
gations, ministers of religion—ordained, and ministers of religion—
commissioned, such as teachers, directors of Christian education, di-
rectors of Christian outreach, deaconesses, [parish assistants,]* and
certified lay ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church who confess
and accept the confessional basis of Article ll. (LCMS Constitution,
Art. V, 1998 Handbook, p. 10).

*Phrase in brackets will become a part of the Constitution and By-
laws if ratified by the congregations of the Synod.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Status of Suspended Congregation While Decision of
Dispute Resolution Panel Is Being Reviewed (98-2132)

A letter was received from a pastor on September 18, 1998,
raising questions regarding the status of a pastor and congregation
that have been placed on suspended status during the time that a
decision of a Review Panel is pending:

1. If a congregation's suspension was overturned by a Dispute Res-
olution Panel, what is the status of that congregation during the
time for an appeal for reconsideration or during the reconsidera-
tion process?

2. If a pastor's suspension was overturned by a Dispute Resolution
Panel, what is the status of that pastor during the time for an ap-
peal for reconsideration or during the reconsideration process?

The Commission notes that throughout the Dispute Resolution
Process of Chapter VIII of Synod’s Bylaws, decisions are binding only
when they are finally resolved. Bylaw 8.09 c 4 a states that a final deci-
sion of the Dispute Resolution Panel shall “be binding upon the parties
to that dispute,” but it also states that this decision is “subject to request
for review.” Bylaw 8.09 e | is the exception, declaring that the final de-
cision of a Review Panel shall “be binding upon the parties to that dis-
pute and not be subject to further appeal.”

Where, therefore, a decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel has
been questioned and is being reconsidered by a Review Panel, the deci-
sions of the Dispute Resolution Panel regarding suspensions are not to
be considered binding. Suspended members continue to hold member-
ship in the Synod under the conditions of Suspended Status as delin-
eated in Bylaw 2.25. Its paragraph b clarifies that “Suspended status
shall continue until membership is duly terminated or the formal pro-
ceedings are completed favorably to the member. While on suspended
status, the member shall continue to hold all rights under the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws subject to the limitations set forth herein,” namely, as
follows in paragraph c. Such suspended status continues until the Re-
view Panel reaches a final and binding decision.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Referral of Convention Ov. 5-52
re Concordia, St. Paul (98-2133)

The President of the Minnesota South District, in a letter re-
ceived September 30, 1998, requested further clarification regard-
ing the 1998 Synod convention action that referred Ov. 5-52 (1998
Convention Workbook, p. 223) to his office (1998 Convention Pro-
ceedings, p. 171). He posed two questions for the Commission:

1. When the Synod referred the overture to me for action, did the
Synod thereby determine in the resolution of referral to sell Con-
cordia University, St. Paul, if a subsequent determination finds
that the problems noted in the overture are not corrected during
the coming triennium?

2. Or assuming that problems noted in the overture are not resolved
within the triennium, will the Synod need to take specific action
at one of the next synodical conventions to sell Concordia Uni-
versity, St. Paul?

The Commission clarifies that referral by convention action places
an item of convention business into the care of that board, commission,
or individual whose area of responsibility includes the matter at hand.
Such referral is not, however, to be regarded as agreement with the
overture’s concerns or an adoption of its resolves. In answer to your
first question, therefore, the Synod by its referral of Ov. 5-52 did not

2001 Convention Workbook