# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 22 2002_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Confessions, the Synod’s doctrinal statements, and the policies of the Synod” (Bylaw 6.23 c), and to
perform such duties in a manner that does not violate the requirement to “honor and uphold the doctrinal
position of the Synod…” (Bylaw 6.43 c 6).
Question 2:

“Is 7.3.3 (sic) of the BHE/CUS Policy Manual revised statement of Academic Freedom,”
adopted by the BHE/CUS Board on July 9, 1998, but never approved by the Synod, in
harmony with Bylaws 1.09 b, 1.09 d, and 2.39 c:
‘It is not inappropriate to present information regarding concepts that conflict with
synodical doctrinal statements/resolutions. This involves (1.) a fair and accurate
description of the synodical position, and (2.) a manner of presentation that
encourages constructive insights and enhanced understanding of the issues.
Presentation of differing and even disturbing concepts is appropriate within the
context of a constructive educational activity.’”

Opinion: A policy manual adopted by an entity of the Synod sets forth the internal operating procedures
of that entity. Such policies have no force beyond the entity. They are subordinate to the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod. They are not approved by the Synod but only by the entity that adopted the policies.
Bylaw 3.905 sets forth the functions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM). Included in
those functions is the duty to interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. The CCM does
not have the authority to interpret policies that are adopted from time to time by the entities of the Synod.
Accordingly, the Commission cannot respond to Question #2.
6. Sundry Questions re the Bylaw 2.27 Process (02-2250)
In a January 22, 2002 letter, a pastor of the Synod submitted a series of questions and concerns to the
Commission regarding the Bylaw 2.27 procedure for investigating complaints brought against a member
of the Synod.
Question 1:

“In looking through the Bylaws of the Synod (Bylaw 2.27 specifically), it speaks of the fact
that the complainant, if the District President declines to suspend, can appeal to the
Praesidium. I understand the 90 day rule. But what if the District President investigates and
rules against the complainant. Can it be pursued further by the complainant or is the matter
over?”

Opinion: This question is answered by the provisions of Bylaw 2.27 b. If the District President declines
to suspend the member or fails to act within 90 days after receipt of the written complaint, the
complainant may present the written complaint to the Praesidium of the Synod.
Question 2:

“Does the process as it is set up in Bylaw 2.27 make the Praesidium the de facto “Supreme
Court” of the Synod, if the District President or synodical President or other supervisory
entity, after investigating a complaint, rules against the complainant?”

Opinion: Again, Bylaw 2.27 b provides the answer. If after investigation the Praesidium concludes that
the facts form a basis for expulsion of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution, the Praesidium
shall proceed in the same fashion as hereafter required of the District President. If the Praesidium
determines not to proceed, it shall in writing so inform the complainant and the involved member, which
shall terminate the matter. Thus, if the Praesidium decides to pursue the matter, the Praesidium is the
party that must present the facts to the Dispute Resolution Panel that will decide whether the member is to
be expelled from the Synod. On the other hand, if the Praesidium decides not to pursue the matter, such
decision is final and there is no further appeal of that decision.

4