# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S366
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

366 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

President has and always shall have the power to advise, admonish
and reprove.”

According to Bylaw 3.101 B 1 and 5, the President shall “over-
see the activities of all agencies of the Synod to see to it that they
are in accordance with the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
of the Synod” and “shall call up for review any action by an indi-
vidual officer, executive, or agency which, in his view, may be in
violation of the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod
and, if he deems appropriate, request that such action be altered or
reversed. If the matter cannot be resolved, the President shall refer
it to the synodical Board of Directors, the Commission on Consti-
tutional Matters, and/or the Synod in convention as the President
deems appropriate to the issues and party/parties involved.”

Were the Board of Directors of the Synod to act improperly in
appointing its own members, there is no constitutional or Bylaw
authority given to the President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod to nullify an unconstitutional action of the Synod’s Board
of Directors.

Adopted June 23, 2003

Review of Michigan District Bylaws/
District President Signature Responsibilities (03-2344)

In a letter dated March 21, 2003, the President of the Michigan
District submitted a question regarding the interpretation of Arti-
cle XII 9 d of the Constitution. He also asked the Commission to
review changes to his District’s Bylaws that will be proposed to its
convention.

Upon review of the proposed changes to the Bylaws of the
Michigan District, the Commission has no recommendations. Re-
garding the interpretation of Article XII 9 d, the Commission re-
sponds as follows.

Question: According to synodical Handbook Article XII9 d, a
District President shall ... “Sign all examination papers and cer-
tificates of ordination and, in general, all official papers and docu-
ments of their District.” How is the “all official papers and docu-
ments of their District” to be interpreted? (i-e., a contract for snow
removal ... purchase and/or sale of property, office equipment,
etc.)

Opinion: This paragraph of Article XII 9, after specifically nam-
ing “examination papers and certificates” as requiring District Pres-
idents’ signatures, speaks “in general.” Thereby, the bylaw does
Not attempt to itemize those documents that should be signed by
District Presidents.

District Presidents are required to assume responsibility for the
functions of their office and, in Article XII 9 d, to accept that re-
sponsibility by applying their signatures. Documents pertaining to
their ecclesiastical supervisory and chief administrative officer re-
sponsibilities as delineated in Synod and District Bylaws require
their signatures. Lesser documents not included in a general under-
standing of “official papers and documents” and that do not directly
pertain to District Presidents’ ecclesiastical and administrative re-
sponsibilities do not require their signatures.

Adopted April 8, 2003

Publicity of Dispute Resolution Panel Decision
(03-2347)

In an April 2, 2003 e-mail letter, the President of the Synod sub-
mitted the following question to the Commission:

Question: Given the provisions of Bylaw 8.09 c 4 d, may the
synodical President publicize as he deems appropriate under the
circumstances the final decision of a Dispute Resolution Panel,
prior to such decision being appealed by a party to the dispute,
without violating the provisions of Bylaw 8.21 e?

Opinion: As administrator of the dispute resolution process
under Chapter VIII of the Bylaws, the Secretary of the Synod re-
sponded to the same question informally that has now been sub-
mitted to the Commission. That response was as follows:

Bylaw 8.09 provides the entire procedure for the panel portion of
the dispute resolution process. After a panel has been requested, the

2004 Convention Workbook

process is followed to its conclusion, which conclusion may properly
take place at several points in the process: (1) after the dispute resolu-
tion panel has issued its decision and no appeal is forthcoming; (2) after
a request for reconsideration of a dispute resolution panel has been
made but not granted by an appeal panel; or, if a request for reconsid-
eration is granted, (3) after the review panel has issued its decision and
no further opportunity for appeal is available.

Bylaw 8.21 e requires that so long as a matter in dispute is unde-
cided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not
be given to the issues in the matter by any of the parties involved. Rule
of Procedure 26 f specifies that this includes “the reconcilers or panel
members, or the Synod.” It is clear that until a matter is finally decided
or resolved, there is to be no publicity by anyone who has knowledge.
This has been reflected in CCM Opinion 01-2243 and numerous subse-
quent opinions (01-2251; 02-2259; 02-2260; 02-2261; 02-2266; 02-
2284; and 02-2304).

What then of Bylaw 8.09 c 4? It appears to authorize publicity be-
fore the entire process has been exhausted. It should be noted, however,
that paragraph 4 speaks of the “final decision,” referring to cases in
which there is no request for reconsideration. Until the 30 days for such
request provided by paragraph d have elapsed, the “decision of the Dis-
pute Resolution Panel” is not yet “final.” Nor is it final if a request for
reconsideration is made. This is also clear from paragraph c 4 a, which
states that the decision of the panel is binding “subject to request for re-
view,” and paragraph c 4 c, which speaks of the decision being carried
out, which is only reasonable after it is truly final. Paragraph c 4 d,
therefore, must also be similarly understood. It speaks of publicity by
the District or synodical President after a “final decision” has been
reached.

Having reviewed the informal response of the Secretary, the
Commission adopts that response as its own.

Adopted April 8, 2003

District Constitution Committee Review
of Congregation Constitutions and Bylaws (03-2349)

In a letter received April 21, 2003, a District Secretary and the
Chairman of his District’s Constitution Committee request the
guidance of the Commission in responding to a section of a con-
gregation’s Constitution and Bylaws that had been submitted for
review. The District committee found articulated in the documents
submitted for review a view of the Call and the call process that
provoked a number of questions. The paragraph in question in-
cludes several statements about the nature and tenure of a Call that
are not addressed by the “Guidelines for the Constitution and By-
laws of a Lutheran Congregation” provided by the Commission on
Constitutional Matters.

Question: Is this section of the submitted Constitution and By-
laws governing “Calls to the Church” a correct and adequate con-
fession of the doctrine and practice of our Synod?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.03 provides that a District Constitution Com-
mittee is to review a congregation’s new Constitution or Bylaws or
a revision thereof to ascertain that the provisions are in harmony
with the Holy Scriptures, the Confessions, and the teachings and
practices of the Synod. Since this question addresses doctrinal mat-
ters, it should be addressed to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.

This question with its reference to the “Guidelines for the Con-
stitution and Bylaws of a Lutheran Congregation” calls into ques-
tion the role of the guidelines in the work of a District Constitution
Committee. Congregations cannot become members of The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until their constitutions and by-
laws have been approved by a constitution committee of a District
of the Synod. Furthermore, any amendments must also have that
approval before becoming operative.

Since a high degree of uniformity is desirable, the Commission
on.Constitutional Matters has from time to time issued guidelines
for the proper construction of congregational constitutions and by-
laws. It should be noted, however, that there are wide divergences
among the congregations of the Synod and that it is not advisable to
formulate one constitution and bylaws to fit all congregations.
Therefore, District committees, when evaluating constitutions and