# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 12 2017_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
Phone Conference
May 12, 2017
60. Request for Reconsideration of Op. 16-2791 (17-2828)
The commission met by phone conference as arranged during its meeting of May 5–6, with all members
attending, to finalize Op. 17-2828 and to address two other items of business (below). The opinion of the
commission in Op. 17-2828 is as follows:
A district president, later joined by others, requested the commission’s reconsideration of CCM Op. 162791, entitled “Constitutionality of Historical Appeal to President and Praesidium in Expulsion Cases.” A
district president requested, was granted, and made an appearance before the commission, under Bylaw
3.9.2.2 [a]. The Council of Presidents was notified of the request for opinion under Bylaw 3.9.2.2 [b], and
several other members of the council submitted written comment. All of this was gratefully received and
carefully considered by the commission. The request lists three questions and proposes three answers, to
which the commission responds as follows:
Question 1:

What empowerment does the Synod Constitution give the Synod President as
compared to the District Presidents in ecclesiastical supervision, suspension and / or
expulsion of an [individual] 1 member of the Synod?

Background:
Briefly, Op. 16-2791 dealt with the question: “In the event that a district president did not take action in
matters of expulsion, was the process operative in the Bylaws between 1956 and 2004, enabling the
President of the Synod or the Praesidium of the Synod to initiate proceedings and present charges in an
expulsion matter, in violation of the Constitution of the Synod?” While finding that the transfer of this
authority from the President to the Praesidium in 1989 “unconstitutionally deprived the President of the
Synod of procedures for exercising a power granted him in Constitution Art. XI B 1–3,” with respect to the
1956–1989 provision, the commission ruled: “That this power to receive appeals for action, in case of the
inaction of district officials, is one of the means constitutionally ‘at [the President’s] command to promote
and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod’ (Constitution Art. XI B 3) was
the opinion of the Synod in convention in 1956. It expressed this opinion explicitly and with its unique and
final interpretive power. It must therefore be the opinion also of this commission.”
The request for reconsideration of Op. 16-2791 argues variously that the President of the Synod cannot
initiate formal procedures to expel (that is, in terms of present procedures, cannot suspend) a member from
the Synod, in summary:
•

Const. Art. III 8–9, seeking “evangelical supervision, counsel, and care” and “protection…and the
maintenance of [congregations’, pastors’, teachers’, and other church workers’] rights,” taken
together with the requirement of “previous futile admonition” in Const. Art. XIII 1 (it is apparently
argued) require suspension to be carried out only by that ecclesiastical supervisor having direct
ecclesiastical supervision of a member.

•

Const. Art. XI B 1 does not list individual ordained and commissioned ministers of the districts, as
does Const. XII 7; moreover, Const. Art. XI B 1 includes only “doctrine and administration,” while
Const. Art. XII 7 includes life in addition to doctrine and administration of office. Thus, it is held,

1
The request for reconsideration uses the term “individual member” apparently to refer to a member under district
supervision. An individual member, in Bylaw terms, refers to Ministers of Religion—Ordained and Commissioned,
as opposed to congregational (voting) members of the Synod. Const. Art. XIII and Bylaw section 2.14 deal with
individual and congregational members without distinction. The “individual” is therefore dropped in this response.

CCM Minutes – May 12, 2017 – Page 40