# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S298
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

298 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

arrange for an (a) official visit or (b) investigation when a contro-
versy arises in a congregation or when there is evidence of a contin-
uing unresolved problem in doctrine or practice in order that the
District President “may have a clear understanding of the situa-
tion.” The same bylaw further recognizes that a District President
may authorize another person (such as the Circuit Counselor) to
represent him in the matter. The Bylaws do not define the term
“proper channels” and thus the procedure to be used in the investi-
gation is chosen by the District President or his representative and
does not necessarily require the initial contact or meeting to be with
any particular person or group. In such an investigation, any meet-
ing is to carry out the purposes as set forth in these Bylaws.

Your attention is also directed to the provisions of Article XII 7
of the Constitution, which provides:

7. The District Presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise su-
pervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the or-
dained and commissioned ministers of their District and acquaint them-
selves with the religious conditions of the congregations of their
District. To this end they shall visit and, according as they deem it nec-
essary, hofd investigations in the congregations. Their assistants in this
work are the Circuit Counselors, who therefore shall regularly make
their reports to the District President.

Adopted May 20-24, 2004

A Question from Committee 8
Regarding Overture 8-47 (04-2391)

The following question was submitted to the CCM from Floor
Committee 8 on July 9, 2004:

Question: Is the hearing, hearing procedure, and procedure for the
expulsion of the synodical President from membership
in the Synod described in Overture 8-47 of the 2004 syn-
odical Convention Workbook consistent with the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod?

Opinion: No. There is no provision in the Constitution or Bylaws of
the Synod for the expulsion of the synodical President directly by
the convention. Rather, the provisions for expulsions are as set
forth in Article XIII of the Constitution and Bylaw 2.27. In order
for the expulsion process under Bylaw 2.27 to occur, the President
must first be out of office, whether by resignation, failure to be re-
elected, or otherwise.

Adopted July, 2004

Interpretation of Article XI A 4 as to
What Constitutes “in extraordinary cases” (04-2392)

A member of the Synod submitted the following question to the
CCM by letter of July 8, 2004:

Question: In accord with Bylaw 3.905 d, I am requesting of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters an interpretation
of Article XI A 4 of the Constitution, especially in re-
gard to what constitutes “in extraordinary cases” and as
it applies to the synodical President. In view of the fact
the 62" Regular Convention of the Synod is about to
convene, your timely interpretation is deeply appreci-
ated.

Opinion: Article XI A 4 reads “4. Conventions of the Synod and
of the Districts have the right, in extraordinary cases, to elect a
chairman other than the regular presiding officer.” A review of the
decisions of the CCM dating back to at least 1965 reveals that the
issue has never before been considered in a formal opinion of the
CCM. While it would be impossible to anticipate in advance all
circumstances which might conceivably fit the description, such
circumstances would include the situation where the sitting District
President were under suspension as a result of pending charges
under Bylaw 2.27, as occurred last summer in the Atlantic District.
They might also include the extreme illness or other disability oc-
curring contemporaneous to the convention.

Adopted July, 2004

2007 Convention Workbook

A Question from a Dispute Resolution Panel (04-2390)

In a letter dated May 11, 2004 and forwarded by the chairman
of a Review Panel on July 7, 2004, a party to a dispute submitted a
series of concerns and questions to the Commission. In his letter,
the party states that the LCMS Secretary has pointed out that in-
formation contained in a “Handbook for Reconcilers” imposes
“LCMS self-limits” on Dispute Resolution Panels and Review Pan-
els when a congregation is a respondent.

He calls attention to a statement from the handbook (p. 10):
“(note that a Dispute Resolution Pane] may only make a decision
on excommunication issues based on procedural questions - refer
to Bylaws 8.01, 8.11, 8.13 b 1),” and states that this quotation has
been a significant factor in the failurc of the dispute resolution
process for his case. He maintains that this instruction establishes
and imposes partiality or the appearance of partiality by requiring
panel members to disregard LCMS doctrine and instead to comply
with the instructions contained in this subordinate handbook. He
questions whether a subordinate publication may “limit or with-
draw the authority” granted panels in the Bylaws.

Question 1: Is the “Handbook for Reconcilers” in harmony with
the conscience of the Synod? Please compare the au-
thority conferred upon dispute resolution and review
panels by the Synod in Bylaws 8.03 and 8.09 c 1, and
in Rule of Procedure 7 f. If this handbook is not in har-
mony with the Constitution and Bylaws, will the Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters (a) stand by its own
Opinion 02-2308 (October 2, 2002) which already pro-
vides the LCMS resolution on disputes over the rights
and actions of congregations during the dispute reso-
lution process? (b) instruct the Review Panel to disre-
gard the conflicting handbook and to conduct the re-
quired formal hearing according to LCMS Bylaw 8.09
c | without partiality or the appearance of partiality to-
ward either party for any reason? (c) request a doctri-
nal review of the “Handbook for Reconcilers” accord-
ing to LCMS Bylaw 10.15 so that steps can be taken to
make the handbook obedient to the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod and therefore the will of God?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.905 d limits the Commission’s responsibility for
interpretation to the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod. The referenced “Handbook for Reconcilers” is not included
in that responsibility. Therefore, the requested comparison of the
authority conferred upon dispute resolution and review panels by
the handbook in question and by the Bylaws and accompanying
Rules of Procedure cannot be provided by the Commission. And
since the remaining questions (a-c) depend upon such a compari-
son, they also cannot be answered by the Commission.

Question 2: What process or procedure does the CCM propose to
resolve or decide the complicated and widespread mat-
ters in dispute if not by an unbiased and thorough in-
vestigation of the evidence through a formal hearing
by the Review Panel?

Opinion: It is not the responsibility of the Commission to propose
processes or procedures. It is the responsibility of the Commission
to interpret the existing Bylaws and call attention to the processes
or procedures that they provide. In this case, Bylaw 8.09 d states in
its final sentence: “The Review Panel shall generally decide the
issue on the record without further formal hearing but may follow
the procedure used by a Dispute Resolution Panel if deemed neces-
sary.” Therefore it remains for the panel to decide whether to carry
out its responsibilities on the basis of the existing record provided
by the Dispute Resolution Panel or whether to follow the proce-
dure followed by a Dispute Resolution Panel that includes a for-
mal hearing.

Adopted July, 2004

A Question from Floor Committee 1
Regarding Bylaw 3.823 (04-2393)

The chairman of Floor Committee | asked the following ques-
tion:
Question: Does Bylaw 3.823 apply to Resolution 1-06? In other