# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 9 15 2004_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

sitting District President were under suspension as a result of pending charges under Bylaw 2.27, as
occurred last summer in the Atlantic District. They might also include the extreme illness or other
disability occurring contemporaneous to the convention.
277. A Question from a Dispute Resolution Panel (04-2390)

In a letter dated May 11, 2004 and forwarded by the chairman of a Review Panel on July 7,
2004, a party to a dispute submitted a series of concerns and questions to the Commission. In his
letter, the party states that the LCMS Secretary has pointed out that information contained in a
“Handbook for Reconcilers” imposes “LCMS self-limits” on Dispute Resolution Panels and Review
Panels when a congregation is a respondent.
He calls attention to a statement from the handbook (p. 10): “(note that a Dispute Resolution Panel may
only make a decision on excommunication issues based on procedural questions – refer to Bylaws 8.01,
8.11, 8.13 b 1),” and states that this quotation has been a significant factor in the failure of the dispute
resolution process for his case. He maintains that this instruction establishes and imposes partiality or the
appearance of partiality by requiring panel members to disregard LCMS doctrine and instead to comply
with the instructions contained in this subordinate handbook. He questions whether a subordinate
publication may “limit or withdraw the authority” granted panels in the Bylaws.
Question 1:

Is the “Handbook for Reconcilers” in harmony with the conscience of the Synod? Please
compare the authority conferred upon dispute resolution and review panels by the Synod in
Bylaws 8.03 and 8.09 c 1, and in Rule of Procedure 7 f. If this handbook is not in harmony
with the Constitution and Bylaws, will the Commission on Constitutional Matters (a) stand
by its own Opinion 02-2308 (October 2, 2002) which already provides the LCMS
resolution on disputes over the rights and actions of congregations during the dispute
resolution process? (b) instruct the Review Panel to disregard the conflicting handbook and
to conduct the required formal hearing according to LCMS Bylaw 8.09 c 1 without
partiality or the appearance of partiality toward either party for any reason? (c) request a
doctrinal review of the “Handbook for Reconcilers” according to LCMS Bylaw 10.15 so
that steps can be taken to make the handbook obedient to the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod and therefore the will of God?

Opinion: Bylaw 3.905 d limits the Commission’s responsibility for interpretation to the Constitution,
Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod. The referenced “Handbook for Reconcilers” is not included in that
responsibility. Therefore, the requested comparison of the authority conferred upon dispute resolution and
review panels by the handbook in question and by the Bylaws and accompanying Rules of Procedure
cannot be provided by the Commission. And since the remaining questions (a-c) depend upon such a
comparison, they also cannot be answered by the Commission.
Question 2:

What process or procedure does the CCM propose to resolve or decide the complicated and
widespread matters in dispute if not by an unbiased and thorough investigation of the
evidence through a formal hearing by the Review Panel?

Opinion: It is not the responsibility of the Commission to propose processes or procedures. It is the
responsibility of the Commission to interpret the existing Bylaws and call attention to the processes or
procedures that they provide. In this case, Bylaw 8.09 d states in its final sentence: “The Review Panel
shall generally decide the issue on the record without further formal hearing but may follow the procedure
used by a Dispute Resolution Panel if deemed necessary.” Therefore it remains for the panel to decide
whether to carry out its responsibilities on the basis of the existing record provided by the Dispute
Resolution Panel or whether to follow the procedure followed by a Dispute Resolution Panel that includes
a formal hearing.
191