# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 17 2005_S9
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Question 1:

If I were to witness a brother pastor participating in a syncretistic or unionistic worship
service on television, or on a video recording of such service, does this fit the definition of
“own personal knowledge”? Please provide explanation with your answer.

Question 2:

In order to charge a brother pastor with adultery, does seeing him leave a motel room with
a known prostitute fit the definition of “own personal knowledge,” or do I need to be in the
room and witness sexual activity first hand before I can claim a “personal witness to the
alleged violation?” Please provide explanation with your answer.

Question 3:

Could you please articulate a clear and definitive definition of: “A personal witness to the
alleged violation”?

Opinion: The questions posed relating to what one has seen on television and to what one has personally
witnessed (a pastor leaving a motel room with an inappropriate companion) appear to be based upon a
misunderstanding of Resolution 8-01A and Bylaw 2.26, renumbered 2.14 in the 2004 Handbook). The
term “own personal knowledge” appears only in the context of a district president’s responsibility as one
having supervision to, when appropriate, commence a proceeding to expel a congregation or individual
from membership in the Synod (Bylaws 2.14.4, 2.15.4, and 2.17.4). The bylaws in question make clear
that such an action can be based upon information contained either in a written complaint (accusation) or
upon (facts) evidence witnessed by the district president himself.
Bylaw 2.14 (l) further defines “own personal knowledge” as not including “second-hand or hearsay
information.” “Own personal knowledge” can therefore constitute either direct or circumstantial evidence.
Facts can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both.
48. Use of Robert’s Rules of Order (05-2421)
In a March 2, 2005 e-mailed letter an LCMS pastor requested an answer to two questions with the
following introductory information:
In the November 2004 meeting of the Board of Directors, the Board voted 5 to 9 not to
“seek legal remedy through the courts of the State of Missouri to clarify its authority
according to the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution, and Bylaws of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod.”
The minutes of the Board which are posted on the Synod’s Web site say: “After lengthy
discussion, the chair called the question and the motion failed (Yes: 5; No: 9).”
Since the minutes of the Board do not reflect who on the Board voted to oppose this
motion and who supported it, it is impossible to ascertain who the five members were
who were in violation of 1 Corinthians 6. It is also impossible to know how to hold
individuals accountable for their actions on the Board when their individual actions are
not reported to the Synod.
In light of the above information, the pastor asked for opinions in response to the following two
questions.
Question 1:

Is it proper for any board of the Synod to use Robert’s Rules of Order in order to veil an
action that is contrary to Holy Scriptures?

Opinion: The function of the Commission on Constitutional Matters is to “interpret the Synod’s
Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions upon the written request of a member…” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2). Since
21