# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S303 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 303 the Synod or according to the Bylaws that were adopted by the con- vention. Opinion: In a December 5, 1992 opinion (Ag. 1938), at a time when significant changes had been made by the 1992 convention to the Synod’s process for resolving disputes, the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) called attention to Res. 5-01B of the convention, which resolved “‘that all cases currently under the adju- dication or appeals process be concluded under existing bylaws” and that the “‘new procedure shall apply to all dispute resolutions initiated after the date of adoption” of the new dispute resolution process, applying this principle in its response to a question that had been submitted. Furthermore, in a May 22, 1998 opinion (Ag. 2097), in reference to an action to terminate a membership, the Commission opined that such an action “‘is initiated by a written complaint against a member of the Synod.” Therefore, in response to the current question, the Commission on the basis of the previously stated opinions concludes that the letter received by the district president July 6, because it is a written complaint against a member of the Synod, is an action that initi- ates the dispute resolution process on that date. Furthermore, since the date of the letter precedes the dates of the convention of the Synod, the process to be followed will be that which is described by the bylaws that were in effect on that date. Adopted Sept. 27, 2004 Public Rebuke of False Doctrine (04-2401) In a July 20, 2004 letter to the secretary of the Commission, a pastor requested a response to two questions. The first question sought clarification of the Commission’s response to question 9 of former Opinion 02-2309. The second requested an opinion regard- ing Bylaw 2.26 a (revised Handbook Bylaw 2.14.3) adopted by the 2004 convention of the Synod. Question 1: Does this CCM opinion [02-2309] prohibit an LCMS pastor from publicly rebuking the false, public doctrine and practice of another LCMS pastor, the President of the Synod, or a district president? Opinion: The questioner specifically references the following ques- tion and response of Opinion 02-2309: Question 9: Under what constitutional provision, if any, may any person or group, any board or commission, or any other entity assume de jure or de facto the responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given alone to the synodical President or the District President in his respective District. In other words, may any entity that does not have the ecclesiastical supervi- sion, which is the sole responsibility of the synodical President or a District President, publicly reprove or ad- monish another entity? If the answer is “‘yes” how may the Synod avoid havoc, disorder and confusion? Opinion: There is no constitutional provision that allows any per- son, group, board, commission or other entity to assume the responsibil- ity of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given to the President of the Synod under Article XI B or the District President under Article XII 7. This includes the formal or official constitutional responsibility to admonish or reprove members of the Synod. No one is to interfere in the work of another. The CCM opinion in question addresses the question of ecclesi- astical supervision in the Synod, not the precise situation described in the question raised. If and when a pastor or any individual or group does not assume the constitutional responsibility for ecclesi- ' astical supervision in the Synod, Opinion 02-2309 does not pro- hibit any Christian from rebuking a Christian brother so long as biblical and confessional principles are followed. For the proper biblical and confessional principles to be followed in rebuking a Christian brother, the Commission would suggest that an opinion of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations be requested. It might also be helpful for the questioner to refer to Opinion 03- 2338 for an expanded understanding of the constitutional responsi- bility of ecclesiastical supervision. Question 2: Does Bylaw 2.26 a (or any part of the bylaw dealing with restricting, suspending, and expelling congrega- tions or individuals from membership) prohibit an LCMS pastor who has not entered a formal complaint process from publicly rebuking the false, public doc- trine and practice of another LCMS pastor, the Presi- dent of the Synod, or a district president? Opinion: The Commission assumes that the bylaw referred to as Bylaw 2.26 a is the new bylaw adopted in Resolution 8-01A of the 2004 convention of the Synod (Bylaw 2.14.3 in the 2004 revised Handbook). This bylaw and related bylaws do not apply to a person who has not entered a formal complaint. The answer to question one above also applies. Adopted Oct. 6-8, 2004 Book Reviews Critical of a Member of the Synod (04-2407) In an August 3, 2004 e-mailed note to the Secretary of the Synod, a pastor asked for clarification regarding book reviews that are critical of an author who is a member of the Synod. Question: It has been reported that the CCM has rendered the opin- ion that a book review critical of an author can be con- sidered a “complaint” and the author thereby the “ac- cused.” Is this a correct statement? If so, how does 8-01 apply in the case of a review which criticizes the doc- trine contained in a publication of a member of the Synod? Qpinion: In response to the first part of the question, that which was said to have been reported is not a correct statement and does not represent any previous Commission on Constitutional Matters opinion. In its Opinion 99-2140, the Commission did respond to a question regarding doctrinal review. However, the question to which it responded pertained to invoking the dispute resolution process in response to a decision of the Synod’s Commission on Doctrinal Review. In its opinion the Commission concluded that use of dispute resolution process, while it may be used by a mem- ber of the Synod over against the Commission on Doctrinal Re- view, must be limited to the question of whether proper procedures were followed by that commission in reaching its decision. In no known previous decision has the Commission opined that a book review critical of an author can be considered a complaint and the author the accused, thereby invoking the process provided by Bylaw 2.27 (2004 Handbook Bylaw Section 2.14). Therefore, because the statement in the question is not a correct statement and because the question that follows is dependent upon verification that the statement jn question is a correct statement, the Commission concludes that a response to the second part of the question is not required. However, the Commission nonetheless calls attention to Bylaw 8-01 (2004 Handbook Bylaw 1.10.2) and its statement of the purpose and objectives of the Synod’s dispute resolution process. A book review by a member of the Synod that criticizes the doctrine contained in a publication of another member of the Synod is the kind of dispute for which the dispute resolution process has been established. Adopted Oct. 6—8, 2004 Effect of Congregational Vote on Implementation of 2004 Resolution 7-21 (04-2409) A pastor of the Synod in a letter to the Secretary of the Synod dated August 17, 2004, asked regarding the consequences if the congregations of the Synod fail to approve Resolution 7-21 of the 2004 convention by a two-thirds majority vote. Question: If proposed Constitutional Amendment A entitled “To Amend Constitution Regarding Officer and Board Re- sponsibilities” as set forth in Resolution 7-21 of the 2004 convention of the Synod is not passed by a 2/3 majority vote, will the implementation or validity of any other resolutions or changes to the bylaws passed at the 2004 convention be affected? Opinion: It is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the proposed amendment to Article XI F 2 states more clearly what the existing language already means. Any amendment to the Bylaws which is consistent with the former Article XI F 2 2007 Convention Workbook