# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 23 2003_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

7. The District Presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision over the
doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained and commissioned ministers of
their District….
The above quoted paragraphs of Articles XI and XII speak for themselves. As the Commission stated in
Opinion 02-2309, the Synod has assigned to the President of the Synod “the formal or official
constitutional responsibility to admonish or reprove members of the Synod.” Likewise, the Synod has
assigned to a District President the “supervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the
ordained and commissioned ministers in their District.”
Therefore, the Constitution provides that ecclesiastical supervision by the Synod is to be performed by the
President of the Synod and District Presidents. There is no provision in the Constitution that such
ecclesiastical supervision by the Synod is to be performed by any other party. Does this prohibit any other
individual member of the Synod from privately admonishing an erring brother? Certainly not. However, it
is the constitutionally mandated duty of the President and District Presidents, and only the President and
District Presidents, to perform ecclesiastical supervision in the name of the Synod, as detailed in the
Constitution and Bylaws.
Bylaw 2.27 establishes the procedure for commencing an action to terminate congregational or individual
membership. Such termination requires that the member has, after futile admonition, acted contrary to the
confession laid down in Article II of the Constitution and the conditions of membership laid down in
Article VI, or persisted in an offensive conduct. (It is to be remembered that termination of membership
ultimately lies with a Dispute Resolution Panel or, if appealed, a Review Panel.) Ecclesiastical
supervision and termination of membership are two different actions. A written complaint submitted
under the provisions of Bylaw 2.27 is not ecclesiastical supervision.
161. Board of DirectorsRelated Matters (03-2338; 03-2357; 03-2358; 03-2359)
The Commission has been asked for opinions regarding several matters and decisions in which the
Commission believes that valuable input may be available from other sources. Recognizing that the Board
of Directors and/or the other parties involved in these matters may have perspective regarding the
interpretation and historic implementation of the Constitution, Bylaws, and various resolutions of the
Synod that may be of assistance to the Commission in considering these matters, the Commission
instructed its secretary to contact all parties to these matters and to invite further information, if
any, related to the issues that have been raised.
The Commission further invites the Board of Directors or an authorized contingent of its members to
meet with the CCM at its next scheduled meeting to provide such information and perspective as the
Board believes may be helpful to the Commission in carrying out its responsibilities.
162. Reconsideration of Opinions re Ecclesiastical Supervision (03-2338A, B, C)
In a letter received March 1, 2003, a pastor of the Synod encouraged the Commission to reconsider its
January 20-21, 2003 decisions regarding “Consequences of Actions Taken Upon Approval of
Ecclesiastical Supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320) and “all others in any way pertaining to ecclesiastical
supervisor[s].”
In a March 3, 2003 letter, a pastor of the Synod expressed concerns about an opinion of the CCM which
he believes “has an unnecessarily pejorative spin to it” (02-2309) and asks the Commission to “show
specific proof from Scripture, the Confessions, and the Constitution and Bylaws” that the opinion is
justified, or, if that cannot be done, to modify the opinion.
123