# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S296
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

296 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

suspended status are two different actions? How is the
opinion of CCM not a contradiction of the wording
within Bylaw 2.21?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.21 is a general introductory paragraph to Sec-
tion “D. Restricting, Suspending, and Expelling Congregations or
Individuals from Membership” of Chapter II of the Bylaws. It
speaks of instances of “ungodly life” by ordained and commis-
sioned ministers and clarifies that the Synod and its Districts cannot
be held responsible to regulate, restrict, or control the activities in
the life of an individual member of the Synod. It further states that
the only remedy available to the Synod in response to such im-
proper activities is to take “such action as may lead to the termina-
tion of that membership and the attendant rights and privileges.”
The remainder of Section D provides a series of provisions detail-
ing that “remedy,” which includes more than one possible action:
restriction (Bylaw 2.23), suspension (Bylaw 2.25), expulsion
(Bylaw 2.27), and also a procedure for petitioning the removal of
restricted status (Bylaw 2.29). The prior opinion of the Commis-
sion is therefore not a contradiction of the wording within Bylaw
2.21.

Question 3: What provisions are given within the Constitution and
Bylaws to protect a pastor from repeated threat of ex-
pulsion from Synod by the repeated application of
heresy proceedings under Article 2.21 for the same
stated reasons or charges by his District President?

Qpinion: As stated in the response to question 2 above, Bylaw 2.21
is a general paragraph that contains no proceedings. It introduces
actions that may be used according to the judgment of the District
President. One such action, as noted in the question, is suspension
(Bylaw 2.25), which sets in motion the procedure set forth in
Bylaw 2.27, a procedure that continues until membership is termi-
nated or the formal proceedings are completed favorably to the
member. This is an action that can only be initiated one time for
any given reason(s) or charge(s), since the outcome of the expul-
sion process is binding (Bylaw 8.09 c 3 a; 8.09 e 1).

Question 4: When are heresy proceedings against a pastor ever
final for a pastor if a District President is not limited
in number of times that he can place a pastor on re-
stricted status or suspended status for the same reason?

Opinion: As explained in the response to question 3 above, sus-
pended status as to a particular action for termination of member-
ship is a one-time action that continues until membership is termi-
nated or formal proceedings are completed favorably to the
member. Bylaw “2.23 Restricted Status” includes no limitation on
the number of times that a District President may place an individ-
ual member on restricted status if information with respect to such
member provides a substantial basis to conclude that any or all of
the three reasons for such action given in Bylaw 2.23 apply to the
member.

Question 5: What is the nature of the Bylaws of Synod that failure
of the COP to meet the requirements of the Bylaws are
a “matter of concern” and therefore to be dismissed,
but the sequence of actions by the District President
“meet the requirements of the Bylaws” and is therefore
to be allowed? Is there a hierarchy to the Bylaws that
allow the CCM to decide which bylaws are to be con-
sidered, “a matter of concern” and which bylaws are
considered dictum by the CCM?

Opinion: The Bylaws articulate the rights and duties of the Synod’s
officers and agencies, for which they are responsible to the Synod
(Constitution Art. XI, Bylaw 1.07, et al.). It is therefore a “matter
of concern” whenever an officer or an agency of the Synod such
as the Council of Presidents fails to meet requirements of the By-
laws. Such failure may be addressed by the President of the Synod
(Constitution Art. XI B 2, Bylaw 3.101 B 3) or even the Synod
(Constitution Art. XI A). A failure to meet the requirements of the
Bylaws is, therefore, in every case a matter of concern. However,
any failure to meet the requirements of one bylaw does not reduce
the status or applicability of other bylaws.

Question 6: In response to Rev. Lindeman’s question 5, as reported
in the CCM’s minutes of the January 28th meeting

2007 Convention Workbook

states, “A decision of Council of Presidents regarding a
particular case of restricted status has bearing only on
the restriction in question. The removal or dropping of
a restricted status has no bearing on future decisions to
place that member of Synod on restricted status or to
commence formal Bylaw 2.27 proceedings that result
in suspended status.”

Rev. Lindeman’s question 5 had specific reference to
provisions of Bylaw 2.29 e, wherein it states, “The de-
cision of the hearing panel shall be the decision of the
COP and shall be final with no right of appeal.”

If upon request, a member of Synod placed on re-
stricted status files a petition for removal of Restricted
Status with the Council of Presidents through the of-
fice of the President of Synod, and the Council of
Presidents rules in favor of the petition for removal
does the, “no right of appeal” apply to office or per-
son placing the appellant on restricted status as well as
the person making the appeal? And if so, can the ap-
pellant again be placed on restricted status or sus-
pended status for the same alleged offence, relating to
the same specific incident, and under what circum-
stances and constitutional authority?

Opinion: Bylaw “2.29 Procedure to Consider Petition for Removal
of Restricted Status” states in its title and its initial paragraph the
purpose of the procedure it outlines, that is, to respond to a request
made under Bylaw 2.23 d appealing the placement on or continu-
ance of restricted status. A member of the Synod placed on re-
stricted status may make such a petition no more than once in a 12-
month period. The responsibility of the hearing panel that is
selected is clear: to consider the petition that has been made for re-
moval of restricted status. Its decision is final, pertains only to the
petition that has been made, and cannot be appealed. If the hearing
panel denies the petition, the decision of the panel is final and the
restriction remains in force. If the panel decides in favor of the pe-
tition, the decision of the panel is final and the restriction is lifted.

As stated in the Commission’s earlier opinion, restricted status
and suspended status are two different actions. Restricted status is
imposed when a District President has information which may
cause him to conclude that certain conditions exist in a church
worker’s life that are of serious concern or may lead to serious con-
sequences, the imposition of which status results in ineligibility to
perform certain functions of ministry and to accept a call to any
other position of service in the Synod (Bylaw 2.23 b). Suspended
status results when formal proceedings have been commenced
against a member of the Synod, individual or congregation, that
may lead to expulsion from the Synod, during which status the ac-
tivities of the member in question are severely limited (Bylaw 2.25
c). While restricted status may lead to suspended status in the case
of individual members (Bylaw 2.25 a), suspended status is not de-
pendent upon the member in question first being placed upon re-
stricted status, nor is it influenced by success or failure in petition-
ing for the removal of restricted status. The outcome of suspended
status is dependent solely upon facts forming a basis for expulsion
from membership under Article XIII of the Constitution (Bylaw
2.27 c) and, if there is a desire to have the matter heard and re-
solved (Bylaw 2.27 c), upon a decision by none other than a Dis-
pute Resolution Panel proceeding according to Bylaw 8.09.

Adopted May 20-24, 2004

Questions Regarding the CCM, Synod’s Constitution
and Bylaws and Articles H and XII (04-2385)

In a letter dated February 18, 2004, an ordained member of the
Synod submitted a series of questions regarding the CCM, Synod’s
Constitution and Bylaws and Article II and Article XIII.

Question 1: The Synod has given to the CCM the “precisely de-
fined service function” (Bylaw 3.51 b) to “interpret
Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions” (Bylaw
3.905 d). If the CCM issues an opinion beyond this
precisely defined service function or that does not in-
volve interpretation of the Synod’s Constitution, By-