# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S319
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 319

ther step back from ministry and not involve himself during this
time in any ministry and pastoral matters.

Art. XH 7 of the Constitution of the Synod states in part: “The
District Presidents shal], moreover, especially exercise supervision
over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained
and commissioned ministers of their District” (1998 Handbook, p.
15). Bylaw 4.73 uses much the same language: “Each District Pres-
ident, in accordance with the Constitution of the Synod, shall su-
pervise the doctrine, the life, and the official administration on the
part of the ordained or commissioned ministers who are members
through his District or are subject to his ecclesiastical supervi-
sion,....”” (Handbook, p. 90).

Bylaw 3.51 k defines the term “supervision” as follows: ‘For
the purpose of these Bylaws, other than those pertaining to ecclesi-
astical supervision, to have authority over, to direct actions, to con-
trol activities. The definition of ecclesiastical supervision shall be
determined exclusively by those Bylaws pertaining to ecclesiastical
supervision.” (Handbook, pp. 41-42). Thus, in the realin of eccle-
siastical supervision, the Bylaws pertaining thereto define the term.

Article XIf 8 lends further light on this question, stating: “Dis-
trict Presidents are empowcred to suspend from membership or-
dained and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to
false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in ac-
cordance with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of
the Synod” (Handbook, p. 15). The Bylaws dealing with suspended
status are 2.25 and 2.27 (Handbook, pp. 28-29). Neither of these
Bylaws gives to a District President authority to order a pastor
under his ecclesiastical supervision to take a leave of absence from
the position of service he holds.

In the case in question, the authority that issued the call to the
ordained minister was the District Board of Missions. Under ap-
propriate circumstances and after consultation with its called
worker, a calling authority may direct the worker to take a limited
paid leave of absence. The Bylaws do not state or infer, however,
that a District President has this authority. A District President may
ask an ordained minister to take a leave of absence; he may urge a
calling authority to take such a step; he may place an ordained or
commissioned minister on “restricted status” if the criteria of
Bylaw 2.23 are met (Handbook, p. 27); he may even advise the
worker to take a leave of absence rather than be the subject of an
action under Bylaw 2.27 to terminate metnbership in the Synod;
but a District President does not have the authority to order an or-
dained or commissioned minister under his ecclesiastical supervi-
sion to take a leave of absence.

The second question asked of the Commission is whether the
District President, when placing the pastor on restricted status, had
the authority to order the pastor not to engage in further pastoral
work or ministry at the church he was serving as pastor or else-
where until the restricted status was removed.

Bylaw 2.23 b states: “An individual member of the Synod on
restricted status is ineligible to |. perform functions of ministry ex-
cept in the position of service, if any, held at the inception of re-
stricted status and otherwise only if approved by the District Pres-
ident; and 2. accept a call to any other position of service in the
Synod.” This Bylaw clearly states that an ordained minister on re-
stricted status is cligible to continue the position of ministry he held
when placed on restricted status. The clause “and otherwise only
if approved by the District President” allows a District President to
enlarge the area of ministry performed by the individual on re-
stricted status beyond the current position of service, but the Bylaw
does not give a District President the power to further restrict the
activities of an ordained minister beyond the terms of the Bylaw
itself.

Accordingly, the answer to the second question is that the Dis-
trict President did not have the authority to order the pastor who
was on restricted status to not engage in further pastoral work or
ministry at the position of service he held at the time he was placed
on restricted status.

Adopted March 1, 1999

Questions regarding Appropriate Use
of Dispute Resolution Process (99-2140)

The office of the President has received notice that a member of
the Synod is secking the use of the Dispute Resolution Process with
the Chairman of the Synod’s Commission on Doctrinal Review be-
cause the Commission revoked its certification of a book that he
authored. The President’s office requests the opinion of the Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters in answer to the following ques-
tions:

How do the limitations of the Dispute Resolution Process as stipu-
lated in Bylaw 8.13 speak to the question of invoking the Dispute Res-
olution Process in regard to the revocation of a doctrinal review certifi-
cation?

Since the Commission on Doctrinal Review is to concern itself ex-
clusively with “official periodicals and journals of the Synod as well as
any material with doctrinal content” (Bylaw 11.03 a), and since the Dis-
pute Resolution Process is to concern itself exclusively with “parties,
members of the Synod, the Synod itself, a District, or an organization”
(Bylaw 8.01) that are in dispute, how can the Dispute Resolution
Process assume responsibility for adjudicating matters given exclusive
to the Commission on Doctrinal Review?

May an individual, whose published work has been the subject of a
decision reached by the Commission on Doctrinal Review, bring the
Commission on Doctrinal Review into the Dispute Resolution Process
because he disagrees with the Commission’s judgment concerning his
work?

The Commission’s response: The overall question being asked
is whether a member of the Synod may invoke the Dispute Reso-
lution Process set forth in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws of the Synod
in a dispute with the Synod’s Commission on Doctrinal Review
after the Commission revoked its certification of a book the mem-
ber authored.

Bylaw 8.01 states that the dispute resolution procedure is estab-
lished to resolve disputes that “involve as parties, members of the
Synod, the Synod itself, a District or an organization owned and
controlled by the Synod, persons involved in excommunication or
lay members of congregations of the Synod holding positions with
the Synod itself or with Districts or other organizations owned and
controlled by the Synod and shail be the exclusive remedy to re-
solve such disputes” (1998 Handbook, p. 126). Since in this case
the dispute would be between a member of the Synod and the
Synod itself, it is a proper subject for dispute resolution under
Bylaw 8.13 c, which vests in the synodical Dispute Resolution
Process general jurisdiction of al] disputes that are not specitically
enumerated in Bylaw 8.13 b and of all cases that fal] under Art.
XIII of the Constitution (1998 Handbook, pp. 129-130).

Bylaw 11.15 (1998 Handbook, p. 138), however, specifically
sets forth the appeals procedure for materials already published, a
procedure that is intended to provide exclusive remedy when doc-
trinal content decisions reached by the Commission on Doctrinal
Review are challenged. Any use of the Dispute Resolution Process
with this Commission must, therefore, necessarily limit itself to the
question of whether proper procedures were followed by the Com-
mission in reaching its decision.

Adopted March 1, 1999

Question regarding Academic Freedom (99-2142)

A pastor who is also a member of the Board of Regents of Con-
cordia, River Forest, asked a question that surfaced during discus-
sions regarding the use of “Guiding Principles of Academic Free-
dom” provided by the Board for Higher Education of the Synod:

Is it in keeping with the Bylaws of the Synod (i.e., 6.23 c) fora

Board of Regents, using the BHE/CUS “Guidelines on Academic Free-

dom,” to contract a member of a Missouri Synod congregation or ros-

tered member of the Synod who is known to publicly hold a teaching
that is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod?

The Commission responds as follows: Bylaw 3.409 grants to
the Board for Higher Education (BHE) “the overall responsibility
to provide for the education of ordained and commissioned minis-
ters and other professional church workers for the Synod.” Part of
this responsibility is to “provide details for the application of poli-

2001 Convention Workbook