# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S293 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 293 President, as the case may be. The President of the Synod and Dis- trict Presidents are officers of the Synod. Thus, the Synod, having designated to its members the individuals who will provide to them supervision and counsel, is itself responsible for the accuracy and content of such supervision and counsel. Having promised supervi- sion and counsel, the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the advice and counsel of the eccle- siastical supervisor designated by the Synod. It would be inconsistent with the above constitutional provi- sions to place the membership of an individual or congregation at risk where that member relies on the ecclesiastical supervision and counsel of the person called and chosen for that role or function. If an act is in fact contrary to Article XIII of the Constitution, the member who acted cannot be charged since he or she acted accord- ing to the advice of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor. It should be noted, however, that when an ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error in his counsel, it is incumbent upon that supervisor to correct or amend it. The member should then be held to consider the cor- rected counsel. Failure to consider such amended admonition could form the basis for disciplinary action as provided in Article XIII. Where members of Synod have doctrinal disagreements and disputes, mechanisms are in place to allow for dialogue and dis- cussion and the adoption of doctrinal positions (Bylaws 1.09 and 2.39). Such disagreements or disputes, however, are not intended to lead to the bringing of charges under Bylaw 2.27 or the implemen- tation of dispute resolution process under Chapter VIII of the By- laws. Question 2: May an ordained or commissioned minister or a mem- ber congregation who has acted in a matter after re- ceiving the advice and authorization of his/her District President be charged under bylaw 2.27 for such act, which could result in removal from the roster of the Synod? Opinion: The answer to this question, as already stated in the re- sponse to question 1, is “no.” The District President has ecclesias- tical supervision of the ordained and commissioned ministers and member congregations within his District as set forth in Article XII 7 and Bylaws 4.71, 4.73 and 4.75. When an ordained or commis- sioned minister or member congregation has acted in a manner that is consistent with the counsel of the District President, the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the Synod. Question 3: May any person, member or board of the Synod, by in- voking Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, be allowed to disrupt, ham- per or harass the synodical President who is responsi- ble to the Synod (Art. XI A) in carrying out his duties and responsibilities for ecclesiastical supervision as stated in synodical Constitution Article XI B 1-4 and Article III 8, including advising a District President concerning a doctrinal position of the Synod and/or a question of administrative action, thus assuming only the rights and duties conferred on him by the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. Opinion: The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.27 cannot be in- voked in the case of the President of the Synod (see CCM Opinion 01-2240). Whereas there may be occasions when the use of Chap- ter VIII of the Bylaws may be appropriate (see Opinion 03-2325), implementation of the dispute resolution process should never be intended or allowed to disrupt, hamper, or harass the President as he carries out the duties and responsibilities of his office, including those of ecclesiastical supervision. It is never appropriate to assume rights and duties that have been conferred upon another by the Con- stitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. Question 4: If the answer to the previous question is “yes,” then under what circumstances can a District President or synodical President carry out their duties without being harassed and hampered by the invoking of Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII. Qpinion: In the case of the President of the Synod, see the answer to question 3 above. In the case of charges brought against a Dis- trict President, if he has been carrying out his responsibilities and the charges clearly are not supportable, the investigating officer may act quickly to dismiss the matter. Should members of the Synod abuse the Bylaws by bringing clearly unsupportable charges or complaints, such conduct may itself give offense and should be dealt with accordingly. Question 5: May any person, member, or board of the Synod, after invoking Bylaw 2.27 and receiving a perceived “unfa- vorable” result, then invoke Chapter VIII against a District President and/or the synodical President al- though both were providing ecclesiastical supervision and seeing to it that the doctrinal position and the reso- lutions of the Synod were being carried out before Bylaw 2.27 was invoked in the first place. Opinion: If an individual makes an allegation under Bylaw 2.27 against a member of the Synod, that allegation is given to the mem- ber’s ecclesiastical supervisor, either the President of the Synod or the appropriate District President. If the ecclesiastical supervisor declines to take any action, the party that has made the allegation may appeal that decision to the Praesidium of the Synod. Should the Praesidium also decline to take any action on the allegation, in the words of Bylaw 2.27 b, that “shall terminate the matter.” In other words, the matter is dead and there is no way that the com- plainant can invoke any of the provisions of Chapter VIII. Question 6: If the synodical President or District President are car- rying out ecclesiastical supervision according to the Constitution and Article XJ and Article ITI 8 or Article XII and seeing to it that the resolutions of the Synod are being carried out (honored and upheld), under what constitutional provision may the President be recused from any subsequent involvement. Opinion: There is no such constitutional provision. Question 7: When the Synod has clearly stated its position or when an ecclesiastical supervisor has expressed his judgment concerning an issue based on a resolution adopted by the Synod, does a dissenter have the right to invoke Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII rather than 2.39 c, the stated procedure for dissent referred to in Bylaw 1.09 d? Opinion: Bylaw 2.27 is not the method provided by the Bylaws to resolve disputes as to what the doctrines of the church should be. Rather, it provides procedures for expulsion from the Synod ac- cording to Article XIII of the Constitution. Where there is disagree- ment by the complainant about the doctrines of the church, the ac- tion is one of a dissenter, which is governed by the provisions of Bylaw 2.39 c. Question 8: Is it a conflict of interest when a District President and/or synodical President are carrying out their duties of ecclesiastical supervision and seeing to it that the resolutions of the Synod are being carried out? If the answer is “yes” in what sense is it a “conflict of inter- est” and how is conflict of interest then defined. Opinion: The answer to the first part of this question is “no.” An ecclesiastical supervisor carrying out his responsibilities of ecclesi- astical supervision is not creating a conflict of interest with respect to his duties and responsibilities imposed by the Constitution or Bylaws. A Bylaw 2.27 action against a District President falls within the provisions of Bylaw 2.27 g, and the synodical President becomes the investigating officer. Disqualification of the President of the Synod, as with the District President, occurs where he is a party to the matter in dispute, has a conflict of interest, or is otherwise un- able to act. The fact that the investigating officer, whether a synod- ical or District President, has been involved in performing his ec- clesiastical responsibilities in supervising the accused party is in and of itself not a basis for disqualification. In fact, the Constitution of the Synod presupposes that since or when there is prior supervi- sion, advice, or futile admonition regarding the activity giving rise 2007 Convention Workbook