# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 11 2002_S7
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Response: You are correct that it is the responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters to
interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. It is not the responsibility of the Commission
to make application of these documents to individual cases since it does not have all the facts to make
such determinations. The Commission will therefore limit its comments to your first request for an
interpretation of the duties of a District President as provided by Bylaw 2.27.
The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod provide two avenues of action when disputes arise between
members of the Synod. One avenue is the dispute resolution process provided in Chapter VIII of the
Bylaws, which “is applicable whether the dispute involves only a difference of opinion without personal
animosity or is one which involves ill will and sin which requires repentance and forgiveness” (Bylaw
8.01). The second avenue is the termination of membership process provided by Bylaw 2.27, which
applies when a written complaint is made against a member of the Synod regarding “facts which could
lead to the expulsion of a member from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution” (Bylaw 2.27 a).
Parties with concerns regarding other members of the Synod should decide early on which avenue they
wish or need to take. If the goal is “to resolve, in a God-pleasing manner, disputes that involve as parties,
members of the Synod, the Synod itself, a District or an organization owned and controlled by the Synod,
persons involved in excommunication or lay members of congregations of the Synod holding positions
with the Synod itself or with Districts or other organizations owned and controlled by the Synod,” the
dispute resolution process provided by Chapter VIII of the Bylaws “shall be the exclusive remedy to
resolve such disputes” (Bylaw 8.01). In such case, efforts must be made to resolve the matter informally
before the formal process begins (Bylaw 8.05). If such informal efforts are unsuccessful, the Secretary of
the Synod or of the District (see Bylaw 8.13 b and c) is contacted for the assignment of a reconciler, in
which case the process outlined in Chapter VIII is followed to the conclusion of the matter.
If, on the other hand, a concern is of such nature that it could lead to termination of membership in the
Synod, then a written complaint should be filed with the appropriate District President, who is required to
“investigate whether the allegations can be substantiated” (Bylaw 2.27 a 1) and to make a decision
regarding termination of membership (Bylaw 2.27 b). This process requires that the District President
“follow the guidelines of Matt. 18:15-16 and may appoint a small committee to assist in reconciliation
efforts” (Bylaw 2.27 a 2).
Oftentimes District Presidents become involved in dispute resolution before either of the above avenues
are taken, as part of their overall responsibilities to “supervise the doctrine, the life, and the official
administration on the part of the ordained or commissioned ministers who are members through his
District or are subject to his ecclesiastical supervision” (Bylaw 4.73). In doing so, District Presidents may
make use of the trained reconcilers in their Districts.
When either of the formal avenues of dispute resolution are chosen, it is important that the action be
clearly taken, either by contacting the District or Synod Secretary for the assignment of a reconciler or by
making a formal written complaint to the District President as required by Bylaw 2.27 a. When a written
complaint is made to a District President, he has 90 days to act. If he “fails to act” or if he declines to
suspend the member, the complainant may present the written complaint to the Praesidium of the Synod
(Bylaw 2.27, b).
In large part the questions addressed to the Commission focus on the “fails to act” issue. The Commission
on Constitutional Matters has previously interpreted “fails to act” as follows (Ag. 2097):
The CCM interprets “fails to act” to mean that a District President takes no action within 90 days
of receiving a complaint. Such inaction would mean no measures were initiated within the 90 day

166