# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S326 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 326 while a matter in dispute is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending. Question 2: Since the process described in Bylaw 2.27 f may include a formal presentation of the complaint to the Dispute Res- olution Panel, does Bylaw 8.21 e also apply to all parties and syn- odical officials when a complaint is filed according to Bylaw 2.27? Response: When a complaint is filed according to Bylaw 2.27, the matter is “in dispute” and therefore Bylaw 8.21 e is applicable. Whether any “synodical officials” are “any of the parties involved” depends upon what position a synodical official has to the matter in dispute. If all of the parties involved in the matter adhere to Bylaw 8.21 e, there should be no public knowledge that the matter is in dispute. Question 3: Does the Constitution or its Bylaws describe ex- plicitly or implicitly any con-sequences for failing to abide by Bylaw 8.21 e? Response: There is no specific provision in the Constitution or By- laws that deals with a failure to abide by Bylaw 8.21 e. However, in- dividual membership in the Synod is obtained by the procedures set forth in Bylaw 2.07 c, which is authorized by Article VI7 of the Con- stitution of the Synod. In addition, Bylaw 1.05 d provides that indi- vidual members commit themselves as members of the Synod to act in accordance with the synodical Constitution and Bylaws under which they have agreed to live and work together. Article XIII of the Constitution provides that members who per- sist in an offensive conduct shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod by following such procedures as set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod. Whether a violation of Bylaw 8.21 e is a violation of Article XIII depends upon the facts of a given situation. Question 4: If a synodical employee who has the responsibility for official communications—through (a) the Synod’s official printed media (e.g. The Lutheran Witness, the Reporter), (b) the public press, or (c) an electronic medium such as e-mail—publi- cizes the issues of a matter in dispute which is still undecided or while an appeal is being contemplated (either by his own volition or at the behest of a superior synodical officer‘or board), shall that synodical employee be held accountable for such action? Response: The director of the Synod’s news and information services is appointed by and responsible to the Board for Commu- nication Services (Bylaw 12.03). The Board for Communication Services has the responsibility for the official periodicals of the Synod (Bylaws 3.813 c and 12.01 c). Staff (which includes such director) is responsible to the Synod through its board, which shall exercise supervision in accordance with the Constitution and By- laws, resolutions of the convention, and the decisions of the re- spective board or commission (Bylaw 1.07 e). Therefore, an em- ployee of the Synod is accountable for his/her actions to the board or commission he/she serves. Adopted Jan. 11, 2002 Questions re Implementation of Matthew 18 in Bylaw 2.27 (01-2244) In a November 19, 2001 letter, a pastor of the Synod asked a series of questions regarding the implementation of Matthew 18 in the dispute process and other related matters. The Commission re- sponded as follows. Question 1: Should the Commission on Constitutional Matters render rulings on how Matthew 18 is to be implemented? Response: Bylaw 2.27 a 2 directs a District President to follow the guidelines of Matthew 18:15-16. Bylaw 6.47 a requires a Board of Regents to direct the complainant to first meet face to face with the respondent in an attempt to resolve the issue (Matt. 18:15) and have the president of the educational institution assist in the at- tempt. Bylaw 6.47 d provides that if a Board of Regents determines that all informal reconciliation efforts have failed, the Board of Re- gents shall form a Review Committee of five persons (Matt. 18:16). Bylaw 8.05 indicates that before any matter is submitted to the for- mal reconciliation process, the parties involved in a dispute must meet together, face to face, in a good-faith attempt to settle their 2004 Convention Workbook OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS dispute (Matt. 18:15). Bylaw 8.07 c states that if the reconciler de- termines that informal reconciliation efforts have been inadequate, the reconciler shall direct the parties to engage in further informal reconciliation efforts. Bylaw 3.905 d directs the Commission on Constitutional Matters to interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions upon the request of an appropriate party. The Commission on Constitu- tional Matters is not a fact-finding body. Thus, if the question on how Matthew 18 is to be implemented involves an interpretation of the Constitution, Bylaws or resolutions of the Synod, the Commission on Constitutional Matters will render an opinion. However, if the ques- tion involves a factual or theological determination, the Commission has no authority to render an opinion. Question 2: If, on the one hand, questions about the implementa- tion of Matthew 18 are of a theological nature and outside the purview of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, what entity within Synod would be called upon to make a definitive interpretation in cases which required clarification? Response: Bylaw 8.21 i provides that if any part of a dispute in- volves a specific question of doctrine or doctrinal application, each party shall have the right to an opinion from the Commission on The- ology and Church Relations. Question 3: Would the Commission on Constitutional Matters be willing to consider the possibility that Matthew 18 does not neces- sarily mean that all complainants must have a face-to-face encounter with the offender? Response: See the responses to questions 1 and 2 above. Question 4: Bylaw 2.27 a 2 references Matthew 18:15—16, while the Preamble to Bylaw VIII references Matthew 18:15-20 and Bylaw 8.07 e references Matthew 18:16. Is Matthew 18 in fact treated con- sistently throughout the Bylaws? Response: Yes. References to specific verses of Matthew 18 re- late to the bylaw where the reference is found. Question 5: A series of questions are then set forth as follows: * Do Synod’s Bylaws distinguish between offenses which are the re- sult of immorality and offenses which are the result of false teach- ing? ¢ Do Synod’s Bylaws make a distinction between temporal disputes which occur among members and offenses against God’s eternal Word? ¢ If a complaint is filed against a member of Synod who maintains that Jesus Christ didn’t really rise from the dead, would this be treated as a disagreement among members of Synod who just have different opinions on the matter or is it treated as an offense against the clear Word of God requiring formal discipline? « Does an offense against the clear Word of God need “dispute reso- lution” or does it need to be handled in a different manner? ¢ What entity would determine whether a matter is merely the differ- ence of theological opinion between contentious parties or is an of- fense against the clear Word of God? ° If a complaint is filed against a member of Synod who openly es- pouses the ordination of women, is that likely to be treated as a mat- ter of dispute which needs to be resolved or rather as a matter of. error which needs to be disciplined? ¢ Do Synod’s Bylaws 2.27 or 8.01 address a situation in which one member of Synod may formally point out the de facto doctrinal dis- sension of another member who either has or has not followed the procedure listed in Bylaw 2.39? If so, would this be treated as a matter for dispute resolution—or rather for possible expulsion from Synod through some other entity? « Is the Commission on Constitutional Matters able to give a ruling as to a reasonable length of time after the stipulations of Bylaw 2.39 have been followed to bring closure to the matter—or may a mem- ber of Synod maintain his dissent indefinitely as long as he has fol- lowed the procedures stated in Bylaw 2.397 Response: These questions are so broad that a specific response thereto would require a lengthy discourse which would be confusing by reason of the fact that the questions themselves are confusing. Since a definite conclusion cannot be given, the Commission declines