# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S219
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

cers fail to act, the President of Synod, by virtue of the
power given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1,
2, 3) may on his own initiative institute proceedings,
take administrative action, and, if necessary, present
charges to the District Board of Appeals. (1956 Bylaw
5.23, Handbook, n.p.)
1956 Res. 6-11, which effected this addition, was proposed by
the CCM, following a suggestion from the Board of Appeals.2
It gave as the rationale for this bylaw addition the following
whereas paragraph:
Whereas, It is necessary to clarify Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3,
concerning the powers of the President if District officers
fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for service of pastors, professors, or teachers; therefore be it
Resolved, That Section 5.23 be amended to read as follows
… (1956 Proceedings, p. 451)
The provision in question, specifically mentioning the service
of pastors, professors, and teachers, was thus adopted by the
Synod in convention explicitly as a clarification of the ecclesiastical supervisory power of the President of the Synod when
district officers fail to act. This power is granted in Constitution Art. XI B 1–3, the text of which remains today as it was
in 1956. 3
This provision was proposed through the CCM, which was
charged essentially as is today’s commission to “examine all
reports, overtures, and resolutions to the Synod asking for
amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod
or which in any manner affect the Constitution and Bylaws,
to determine their agreement in content and language with
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2.1,
cf. similar 1956 Bylaw 2.113 [b]). The committee was also responsible to “interpret the Constitution and By-Laws in cases
of controversy” (1956 Bylaw 2.113 [e], cf. 2013 Bylaw 3.9.2),
which it had been doing on this very topic for at least four
years.4 The 1956 understanding of the CCM was clearly that
the provision in question simply elaborated in the Bylaws a
constitutional power of the President of the Synod.
A Committee (or Commission) on Constitutional Matters, of
course, was and is not the final interpreter of Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. The final interpreter is the
Synod in convention, and where the Synod in convention has
acted to interpret the Constitution, especially where it has acted explicitly and with substantive rationale, those aspects stand
thus interpreted.5 Here, by adopting 1956 Res. 6-11, the Synod in convention explicitly and authoritatively interpreted the
Constitution, even including a constitutional rationale both
in the text of the resolution and in the resultant bylaw: that
the President could initiate proceedings in the case of district
officers’ failure to act “by virtue of the power given him in the
Constitution (Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3)” (1956 Handbook, sec. 5.23,
n.p.). Indeed, the bylaw language adopted was with the express
purpose “to clarify Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3, concerning the powers
of the President if District officers fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for service of pastors, professors, or teachers”
(1956 Proceedings, p. 451).

“12. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution”

The convention has therefore spoken using its authority as
final interpreter of the Synod’s Constitution. The 1956–1989
provision for the initiation of expulsion proceedings by the
Synod President, should district officials fail to act, was constitutional. It elaborated a “procedure as shall be set forth in the
Bylaws of Synod” (2013 Constitution Art. XIII 2) for the exercise of “power given [the Synod President] in the Constitution
(Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3),” putting “at [the President’s] command”
a means “to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod” (Constitution Art. XI B 3).
Although no similar provision exists in the Synod’s 2013 Bylaws, if such a provision were to be adopted, the constitutional
interpretation adopted by the 1956 convention would apply. 6
2. Constitutionality of the 1989–2004 provision for the initiation of expulsion proceedings by the Praesidium, should the
district president fail to act.
1989 Res. 5-08A amended Bylaw 2.27 [f], making the Praesidium of the Synod instead of the President of the Synod
the recipient of a formal complaint in the event that a district
president declined to suspend an accused member or failed
to act in 90 days. No rationale was given for the change from
President to Praesidium, either in the resolution (Proceedings,
pp. 130–131) or in the Commission on Structure’s late overture L5-85, which seems to have prompted the convention action. Its single whereas paragraph read simply, “certain of the
present Bylaws relative to commencing an action to terminate
congregational or individual membership are ambiguous and
confusing” (id., p. 174).
Unlike 1956 Res. 6-11, which stated that the resolution was
“necessary to clarify Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3, concerning the powers of the President if District officers fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for service of pastors, professors, or teachers”
(1956 Proceedings, p. 451), 1989 Res. 5-08A did not address
the constitutionality of the change from President to Praesidium of the Synod. The constitutionality of this change, therefore, is not settled simply by its adoption as a bylaw. Since the
question has now been raised, the following response is given.
Ecclesiastical supervision is covered in the Constitution’s Art.
XI B 1–3 and Art. XII 6–8, which confer supervisory power
first upon the President of Synod, who is to “conscientiously
use all means at his command to promote and maintain unity
of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod,” and
then upon the district presidents, who shall “especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of
office of ordained and commissioned ministers of their district … ” One element entailed in that ecclesiastical supervision is the authority to suspend a member of the Synod, which
begins the formal process that could lead to expulsion from
the Synod (Constitution Art. XIII 1–2).
The term Praesidium does not occur in the Constitution of the
Synod. Art. XI C lists the duties of the vice-presidents: “The
vice-presidents shall upon request of the President represent
him in all his functions.” The Constitution does not assign ecclesiastical supervision to the office of vice-president or to the
Praesidium as a whole, but to the President and the district
presidents (Constitution Art. XI B 1–3; XII 6­–8). While the
U P O N T H I S R O C K • Resolutions

|

219