# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_October 6 8 2004_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

not prohibit any Christian from rebuking a Christian brother so long as biblical and confessional
principles are followed. For the proper biblical and confessional principles to be followed in rebuking a
Christian brother, the Commission would suggest that an opinion of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations be requested. It might also be helpful for the questioner to refer to Opinion 03-2338 for
an expanded understanding of the constitutional responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision.
Question 2:

Does Bylaw 2.26 a (or any part of the bylaw dealing with restricting, suspending, and
expelling congregations or individuals from membership) prohibit an LCMS pastor who
has not entered a formal complaint process from publicly rebuking the false, public
doctrine and practice of another LCMS pastor, the President of the Synod, or a district
president?

Opinion: The Commission assumes that the bylaw referred to as Bylaw 2.26 a is the new bylaw adopted
in Resolution 8-01A of the 2004 convention of the Synod (Bylaw 2.14.3 in the 2004 revised Handbook).
This bylaw and related bylaws do not apply to a person who has not entered a formal complaint. The
answer to question one above also applies.
12. Consequence of Convention Action re KFUO (04-2406)
The former chairman of the Board for Communication Services in a letter faxed July 30, 2004, requested
an opinion regarding the consequences of 2004 convention Resolution 7-02A for radio stations KFUO. In
an e-mailed letter dated September 29, 2004, the former chairman sent a follow-up letter informing the
Commission of his decision to withdraw his questions upon request of the Board for Communication
Services. The Commission honored his decision and removed his request for an opinion from its agenda.
13. Book Reviews Critical of a Member of the Synod (04-2407)
In an August 3, 2004 e-mailed note to the Secretary of the Synod, a pastor asked for clarification
regarding book reviews that are critical of an author who is a member of the Synod.
Question:

It has been reported that the CCM has rendered the opinion that a book review critical of an
author can be considered a “complaint” and the author thereby the “accused.” Is this a correct
statement? If so, how does 8-01 apply in the case of a review which criticizes the doctrine
contained in a publication of a member of the Synod?

Opinion: In response to the first part of the question, that which was said to have been reported is not a
correct statement and does not represent any previous Commission on Constitutional Matters opinion. In
its Opinion 99-2140, the Commission did respond to a question regarding doctrinal review. However, the
question to which it responded pertained to invoking the dispute resolution process in response to a
decision of the Synod’s Commission on Doctrinal Review. In its opinion the Commission concluded that
use of dispute resolution process, while it may be used by a member of the Synod over against the
Commission on Doctrinal Review, must be limited to the question of whether proper procedures were
followed by that commission in reaching its decision. In no known previous decision has the Commission
opined that a book review critical of an author can be considered a complaint and the author the accused,
thereby invoking the process provided by Bylaw 2.27 (2004 Handbook Bylaw Section 2.14).
Therefore, because the statement in the question is not a correct statement and because the question that
follows is dependent upon verification that the statement in question is a correct statement, the
Commission concludes that a response to the second part of the question is not required. However, the
Commission nonetheless calls attention to Bylaw 8-01 (2004 Handbook Bylaw 1.10.2) and its statement
of the purpose and objectives of the Synod’s dispute resolution process. A book review by a member of

6