# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 11 13 2012_S19
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

need both to restore a member promptly following unsubstantiated allegations resulting in an expulsion
proceeding and to expel a member promptly when expulsion is justified.
Question 3: If a member disapproves of testimony offered by a witness relating to allegations against the
member in a Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 matter, is the appropriate forum to challenge the
witness’ testimony within the Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 process itself, or is the appropriate
forum the dispute resolution process under Bylaw section 1.10?
Opinion: The entirety of a Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 process is the evaluation of conflicting information
and testimony, a determination of the facts involved, and the appropriate action based upon those facts. It
is expected that challenges to all evidence and testimony will occur within that process. A dispute
resolution action under Bylaw section 1.10 would only be appropriate for actions occurring outside that
process, or for violation of the Bylaw section 2.14–2.17 process itself.
Question 4: If the complainant refuses to meet face-to-face with the respondent under Bylaw 1.10.5, may
the complainant nonetheless proceed to the formal reconciliation process under Bylaw
1.10.6?
Opinion: As stated above, the entire purpose of a Bylaw section 1.10 action is a God-pleasing
reconciliation. Such reconciliation cannot occur without communication between the parties in dispute.
Bylaw 1.10.5 recognizes this when it indicates that “the parties involved in a dispute must meet together.”
Recognizing that such failure to communicate in a God-pleasing manner often causes a dispute to come to
the attention of a district president in the first place, Bylaw 1.10.5 (c) requires the district president to
“require the complainant to meet face-to-face with the respondent in the manner described in Matthew
18:15, if the complainant has not already done so,” before any formal process can continue under that
bylaw.
Question 5: If a complainant refuses to attend a formal reconciliation meeting under Bylaw 1.10.6, can
the complainant nonetheless proceed to a Dispute Resolution Panel under Bylaw 1.10.7?
Opinion: As suggested by Bylaw 1.10.4 (f), the matter should not proceed to a Dispute Resolution Panel
if the reconciler determines that it was the accuser who refused to participate in the reconciliation process.
On the other hand, the process may move forward if such a meeting did not occur because the accused
refused to participate. A matter may not proceed to a Dispute Resolution Panel under Bylaw 1.10.7 until
the requirements of the preceding bylaws have been met, including the preparation of the reconciler’s
report under Bylaw 1.10.6.5, which would report the failure of the accused as the basis to move forward if
such were the case.
Question 6: Can a non-party attend the formal reconciliation meeting held under Bylaw 1.10.6.4?
Opinion: Yes, Bylaw 1.10.6.4 includes the provision that “[w]ith the approval of the reconciler, each
party may, in the manner described in Matthew 18:16, bring one or two persons to the meeting ‘so that
every matter may be established by their testimony.’” The reconciler may exercise discretion to allow any
person who may assist the process attend the formal reconciliation meeting.
142. Procedural Matters re Bylaw Section 1.8 (Dissent) (12-2646)
A member of the Synod, in a May 10, 2012 email, addressed a series of statements and corresponding
questions to the commission regarding procedural matters pertaining to Bylaw section 1.8 (“Dissent”).

284