# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2013_S317
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
that confidentiality is emphasized in Bylaw 2.14.9.2, which further
provides that “[a]ny member participating in this bylaw procedure
that violates any of the requirements or procedures in this bylaw or
is persistent in false accusations is subject to the same disciplinary
measures as set forth in this bylaw. Violations of the prohibition
against publicity while a matter is still undecided or while an appeal
is contemplated or pending (Bylaw 2.14.7.8 [g] above) by any of the
persons involved are specifically included as violations subject to the
same disciplinary measures set forth in this bylaw.”
Question 2: When an investigation or action is pending under Bylaw
sections 2.14–2.17, is that a matter to be delayed if
there is a dispute resolution process under Bylaw 1.10
involving one or more of the parties or witnesses to the
expulsion action simultaneously pending?
Opinion: No. While the same parties may be involved in both the
Bylaw section 1.10 dispute resolution process and a Bylaw section
2.14–2.17 expulsion process over related facts and issues, the two
processes are independent of each other, and neither process should
be unduly delayed. The Synod recognizes the need both to restore
a member promptly following unsubstantiated allegations resulting
in an expulsion proceeding and to expel a member promptly when
expulsion is justified.
Question 3: If a member disapproves of testimony offered by a
witness relating to allegations against the member in
a Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 matter, is the appropriate
forum to challenge the witness’ testimony within the
Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 process itself, or is the appropriate forum the dispute resolution process under Bylaw
section 1.10?
Opinion: The entirety of a Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 process is the
evaluation of conflicting information and testimony, a determination of the facts involved, and the appropriate action based upon
those facts. It is expected that challenges to all evidence and testimony will occur within that process. A dispute resolution action
under Bylaw section 1.10 would only be appropriate for actions
occurring outside that process, or for violation of the Bylaw section
2.14–2.17 process itself.
Question 4: If the complainant refuses to meet face-to-face with the
respondent under Bylaw 1.10.5, may the complainant
nonetheless proceed to the formal reconciliation process
under Bylaw 1.10.6?
Opinion: As stated above, the entire purpose of a Bylaw section
1.10 action is a God-pleasing reconciliation. Such reconciliation
cannot occur without communication between the parties in dispute. Bylaw 1.10.5 recognizes this when it indicates that “the parties involved in a dispute must meet together.” Recognizing that
such failure to communicate in a God-pleasing manner often causes
a dispute to come to the attention of a district president in the first
place, Bylaw 1.10.5 (c) requires the district president to “require
the complainant to meet face-to-face with the respondent in the
manner described in Matthew 18:15, if the complainant has not already done so,” before any formal process can continue under that
bylaw.
Question 5: If a complainant refuses to attend a formal reconciliation
meeting under Bylaw 1.10.6, can the complainant nonetheless proceed to a Dispute Resolution Panel under
Bylaw 1.10.7?
Opinion: As suggested by Bylaw 1.10.4 (f), the matter should not
proceed to a Dispute Resolution Panel if the reconciler determines
that it was the accuser who refused to participate in the reconciliation process. On the other hand, the process may move forward if

317

such a meeting did not occur because the accused refused to participate. A matter may not proceed to a Dispute Resolution Panel
under Bylaw 1.10.7 until the requirements of the preceding bylaws
have been met, including the preparation of the reconciler’s report
under Bylaw 1.10.6.5, which would report the failure of the accused as the basis to move forward if such were the case.
Question 6: Can a non-party attend the formal reconciliation meeting
held under Bylaw 1.10.6.4?
Opinion: Yes, Bylaw 1.10.6.4 includes the provision that “[w]ith
the approval of the reconciler, each party may, in the manner described in Matthew 18:16, bring one or two persons to the meeting
‘so that every matter may be established by their testimony.’” The
reconciler may exercise discretion to allow any person who may
assist the process to attend the formal reconciliation meeting.
(Adopted May 11–13, 2012)

Procedural Matters re Bylaw Section 1.8 (Dissent)
(12-2646)
A member of the Synod, in a May 10, 2012 email, addressed a
series of statements and corresponding questions to the commission
regarding procedural matters pertaining to Bylaw section 1.8 (“Dissent”).
Bylaws 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 describe the process by which members of
the Synod express dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements
adopted by the Synod. Bylaw 1.8.2 indicates that before a member
of the Synod may submit an overture to a convention calling for the
revision or recision of a resolution adopted by the Synod, that member
must first express that dissent within the fellowship of peers and then
bring it to the attention of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (CTCR). Having done that, the member of the Synod (either
an individual or a congregation) may proceed with the process of
bringing an overture to a convention.
Synod Bylaw 3.1.6.2 specifies those eligible to submit overtures.
Among those listed is the forum of a circuit. Therefore, a member of
the Synod (individual or congregation) who has followed the requirements for dissent described in Bylaw 1.8.2 may submit a proposed
overture to a circuit forum, which if adopted by the circuit forum
may be submitted either to a convention of a district or a convention
of the Synod. In this instance, the circuit forum and/or the district
convention become(s) a channel through which the member submits
an overture to revise or rescind “doctrinal resolutions and statements”
to a convention of the Synod.
Based on this process prescribed by the Bylaws of the Synod,
the commission replies to the four statements and their following
questions submitted by the member of the Synod. In the interest of
brevity and clarity, the commission has summarized a number of the
questions submitted under statements 2–4, taking care to retain the
general content and intent of the original questions.
Statement 1: A circuit forum submits to its appropriate district
convention an overture proposing that the district in turn call upon
the Synod to revise or rescind a doctrinal resolution adopted by the
Synod.
Question 1.1:	If the circuit forum member who made the motion
to place the matter in question before the circuit forum is a pastor, is it relevant whether this pastor had
previously discussed his point of dissent within the
fellowship of peers and brought this matter to the attention of the CTCR before expressing his dissent in
the form of an overture for eventual convention consideration?
Opinion: Yes. Bylaw 1.8.2 requires that a member (individual or
congregation) follow this process before expressing dissent by pre-

2013 Convention Workbook