# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 20 21 2008_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Opinion: The grounds for expulsion from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution are provided
by paragraph 1 of the article:
1. Members who act contrary to the confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions
of membership laid down in Article VI or persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after
previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod.
A personal opinion concerning the actions of a district president, whether privately or publicly stated,
may only form the basis of the initiation of an action for a removal from membership if it meets one of
the grounds as stated in Article XIII, paragraph 1.
Question 2: In accord with Bylaw 2.14.2 (e), does a failure on the part of a district president (the accuser)
to hold a face-to-face meeting with an accused member of the Synod within the specified 30
day limit result in the dismissal of the complaint if the accused has repeatedly affirmed his
desire to meet with the district president regarding a matter in a manner described in Matthew
18:15?
Opinion: Bylaw 2.14.2 (e) defines a face-to-face meeting as follows:
(e) Face-to-face: A face-to-face meeting in person between the accuser and the accused
in the manner described in Matthew 18:15. E-mail, regular mail, fax, or telephone call (or
any combination thereof) does not satisfy this requirement. (Note: Failure to conduct a
face-to-face meeting within 30 days or within such extension as may be established by
the involved ecclesiastical supervisors shall result in dismissal if the fault lies with the
accuser or movement to the next stage if the fault lies with the accused.)
As indicated in the bylaw, failure to conduct a face-to-face meeting within 30 days, if the accuser is
responsible for the failure, results in dismissal unless the 30-day period has been extended by the involved
ecclesiastical supervisor(s). Since no Bylaw section 2.14 action has been initiated in the questioner’s case,
this question is, of course, hypothetical at present.
Question 3: If a district president is the accuser in a matter which may result in the expulsion of a member
of the Synod, and if the district president is requesting a face-to-face meeting in a manner not
described in Matthew 18:15, but demands that the brother whom he believes has wronged
him appear in the district president’s office without any assurance the district president will
meet just between the two of them as brothers, and if the accused desires to challenge this
arrangement as an abridgement of the manner described in Matthew 18:15 in order to fulfill
Bylaw 2.14.2 (e) and Bylaw 2.14.3 (c), and also referenced in Bylaws 2.14.7.1 and 2.14.7.6,
in what way can the accused challenge the accusing district president and ask for clarification
that Matthew 18:15 be carried out in the manner actually described in that passage (that is,
that the brother who believes himself to be wronged goes to the brother whom he believes has
wronged him and that such a meeting would only be between the two of them)?
Opinion: Under Bylaw 2.14.4, the district president may commence an action which could lead to the
expulsion of a member, either by becoming aware of such information by his own personal knowledge or
when a complaint has been initiated by a member congregation or individual member of the Synod
pursuant to Bylaw 2.14.3. In the latter circumstance, where the complaint is brought by a member
congregation or individual member of the Synod, the district president is required to assure that the
complaining member follows the requirements of Bylaw 2.14.3, including assuring, under Bylaw 2.14.3
(c), that the accuser has met face-to-face with the accused in the manner described in Matthew 18:15.
Where the district president initiates the action based on his own personal knowledge and is both accuser

41