# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_May 12 2017_S11
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

including expulsion of a member under his supervision, whether individual or a congregation.” It
deals extensively with the ecclesiastical supervision and, if necessary, discipline of congregations,
but does not address the relative roles of the Synod and district presidents in that ecclesiastical
supervision.
7. CCM Op. 13-2669: Ecclesiastical Supervision and 15-2750: President’s Ecclesiastical Supervisory
Duties and Individual Members of the Synod
CCM Op. 13-2669 concerned (among other things, which the commission does not here address) whether
Article XI granted to the President of the Synod “authority to supervise the doctrine or administration of
individual or congregation members of the Synod not listed in Article XI, [or whether that is] the
responsibility of a district president under Article XII 7.” The opinion, produced nine years after the process
for appeal for action to the Praesidium was replaced with appeal to referral panels and twenty-four years
after the process for appeal for action to the President, with its constitutional rationale, was replaced with
appeal to the Praesidium (though not for constitutional reasons), did not take up 1956 Res. 6-11 or the prior
bylaw procedure, allowing appeal for action to the President, at all. Of course, given that no such bylaws
for a limited appeal for action to the President of the Synod existed in 2013, this may have seemed a moot
point. Likewise, what it means, in Const. Art. XI B 1 c, for the President of the Synod to have supervision
of the districts (which, like the Synod, have no relevant existence except as unions [Constitution Preface:
“Reason for the Forming of a Synodical Union”] of their constituent congregations and individual
members 14)—in addition to supervision, in Const. Art. XI B 1 c, of the district presidents, specifically—
was not addressed.
Bylaw 3.3.1.1.1[b] was examined, that “in the districts of the Synod, [the President of the Synod] shall
carry out his ecclesiastical duties through the district’s president,” but that these duties are, first of all, his,
also received no attention. The present commission is not persuaded by those arguments of Op. 13-2669
that might be applied counter to those of Op. 16-2791 (all of which have been dealt with already).
Op. 13-2669 simply did not deal with all approaches to the constitutional question, and to the extent that it
has been superseded by Op. 16-2791, it stands superseded. Op. 16-2791 and Res. 12-14 deal with an
exceptional case where the front line of ecclesiastical supervision, exercised by the district presidents on
behalf of the one Synod, applying one standard, is alleged to have demonstrably failed. The commission
finds no conflict between the ordinary assignment of ecclesiastical supervision “especially” to district
presidents and the exceptional exercise of ecclesiastical supervision by the President of the Synod in cases
where the exercise of that supervision by the district officials has broken down and the unity of doctrine
and practice in the whole Synod is, therefore, jeopardized. In that exceptional case he is to operate by the
same standard and is subject to the same procedures as the district president. In such a case, by virtue of the
power given him in Const. XI B 1–3, he is to have this means (namely, the ability to initiate expulsion
procedures, i.e., suspend), among others, “at his command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and
practice in all the districts of the Synod.”
CCM Op. 15-2750 responded to the question: “Since Bylaw 1.2.1 (i) states that ecclesiastical supervision
rests primarily with ‘the President of Synod and district presidents,’ does the President of the Synod have
the responsibility, when necessary, to discipline members of the Synod as a district president disciplines
members of the Synod?” It concluded appropriately, based on the bylaws as they existed at the time, and
unaware of the constitutional issue that led to Op. 16-2791, that “the President of the Synod exercises his
authority to supervise doctrine and practice in the districts of the Synod as the Constitution (Art. XII 8) and
Bylaws (2.14, etc.) specify, namely, through his supervision of district presidents. ‘In the districts of the
14
Districts do not have a distinct and collective “doctrine and practice” to supervise, as they are Synod in that place,
nor does a district, as such, hold an office; supervision of doctrine and practice (“administration of office”) of districts
must refer to the doctrine and practice (“administration of office”) of those members of the Synodical union under
their jurisdiction.

CCM Minutes – May 12, 2017 – Page 50