# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 11 2002_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Response: Yes. References to specific verses of Matthew 18 relate to the bylaw where the reference is
found.
QUESTION 5: A series of questions are then set forth as follows:
§ Do Synod's Bylaws distinguish between offenses which are the result of
immorality and offenses which are the result of false teaching?
§ Do Synod's Bylaws make a distinction between temporal disputes which occur
among members and offenses against God's eternal Word?
§ If a complaint is filed against a member of Synod who maintains that Jesus
Christ didn't really rise from the dead, would this be treated as a disagreement
among members of Synod who just have different opinions on the matter or is it
treated as an offense against the clear Word of God requiring formal discipline?
§ Does an offense against the clear Word of God need "dispute resolution" or does
it need to be handled in a different manner?
§ What entity would determine whether a matter is merely the difference of
theological opinion between contentious parties or is an offense against the clear
Word of God?
§ If a complaint is filed against a member of Synod who openly espouses the
ordination of women, is that likely to be treated as a matter of dispute which
needs to be resolved or rather as a matter of error which needs to be
disciplined?
§ Do Synod's Bylaws 2.27 or 8.01 address a situation in which one member of
Synod may formally point out the de facto doctrinal dissension of another
member who either has or has not followed the procedure listed in Bylaw 2.39?
If so, would this be treated as a matter for dispute resolutionor rather for
possible expulsion from Synod through some other entity?
§ Is the Commission on Constitutional Matters able to give a ruling as to a
reasonable length of time after the stipulations of Bylaw 2.39 have been followed
to bring closure to the matteror may a member of Synod maintain his dissent
indefinitely as long as he has followed the procedures stated in Bylaw 2.39?
Response: These questions are so broad that a specific response thereto would require a lengthy discourse
which would be confusing by reason of the fact that the questions themselves are confusing. Since a
definite conclusion cannot be given, the Commission declines to respond thereto in view of the bylaw
provision that its opinions are binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a
synodical convention.
232. Questions re Difference of Opinion Within the Synod re Actions of District President (02-2245)
In a letter received January 11, 2002, a congregation which is a member of the Synod has written to the
Commission relative to a controversy involving allegations against the President of the Atlantic District
which assert that the District President violated the conditions of membership in the Synod. The letter
notes that the Synod’s President and First Vice-President have expressed differing views on the actions of
the District President. The letter goes on to ask the following questions:
QUESTIONS:

Who is correct, Dr. Kieschnick or Rev. Daniel Preus? Did Dr. Benke violate the
LCMS Constitution?”

Response: This Commission’s duties are set forth in Bylaw 3.905. Those duties include interpretation of
the Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod. The questions posed require the application of the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod to a set of facts that are disputed. The questions inherently ask for

164