# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 2 3 2018_S12
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

status would be removed. If a member believes that the restricted status has been imposed unfairly, the
member has the right to appeal that restricted status (Bylaw 2.13.3). An individual on restricted status may
continue in the place of service held at the inception of being placed on restricted status. He is not able to
take a call to another place of service until the matter is resolved. With this understanding of the purpose
of restricted status, the commission, having generalized some of the questions, responds as follows:
Question 1:

Bylaw 2.13.2 gives a district president the power to place a pastor on restricted status. Is
the substantial basis (2.13.2.1) upon which restricted status rests an objective or a
subjective standard?

Opinion:
Neither, but both subjective and objective information may be used by the district
president. A substantial basis is a standard that directs the district president to look at facts, alleged facts,
investigated facts, admitted facts, circumstances, settings, history, and any other information to which the
district president has access that he thinks may enable him to fully analyze what is before him. When all of
the information is thoroughly reviewed and analyzed, the district president is to then determine whether in
his mind there are enough credible facts and circumstances, i.e. the totality of the circumstances, for the
district president to conclude there is a “substantial basis” to place the member in question on restricted
status.
Question 2:

One substantial basis for restriction under Bylaw 2.13.2.1 is that the worker “is incapable
of performing the duties of the office or position because of physical, mental, or emotional
disability.” Does a “substantial basis” here require a medical professional’s diagnosis of
such a condition? Is such an alleged “substantial basis” negated by a competent medical
professional’s statement that such a condition does not exist (or no longer exists)? Would
such a statement compel the lifting of said restriction?

Opinion:
Substantial basis does not require a medical professional’s diagnosis. While a competent
medical professional’s diagnosis may be helpful, it is not in and of itself either the necessary or the only
and final determination. The bylaws direct the district president to examine the information before him to
determine if there is a substantial basis. Each piece of information has its own weight. As stated above, if
the individual on restricted status is convinced that it is unjustified, he may appeal that restricted status.
Question 3:

Furthermore, is Bylaw 2.13.2 intended to give a district president the power to put someone
on restricted status for belligerence? If so, how can such a status be questioned since
belligerence is a subjective measure where defending one’s actions could be perceived as
belligerence? For example, St. Paul could be perceived as belligerent in his opposition to
Peter in Galatians 2 and King Ahab seems to believe Elijah, that “troubler of Israel” (1
Kings 18:17), is belligerent. If the only process for contesting such a subjective measure is
the appeal process in Bylaw 2.13.3, can subjective measures like one’s perceived
belligerence really provide a substantial basis or should such subjective measures be
considered an invalid basis and removed from consideration?

Opinion:
Bylaw 2.13.2 gives the district president permission to place a member on restricted status
when the subjective and objective information before the district president provides, in the eyes of the
district president, a substantial basis to conclude that the member fits into a category described in 2.13.2.1
(a), (b), or (c). Belligerent behavior certainly may be an aspect or a part of the information before the district
president.
The matter of whether or not certain behavior is “belligerent” requires a finding of fact, which is not the
charge which the bylaws give to the commission. Should the restricted status be appealed, that would be a
decision made by the panel.
Question 4:

Along the same lines, is domineering a reason for the use of restricted status or is that only
a cause for removal? Can domineering be questioned since it is also a subjective measure?
Moses was accused of being domineering (Numbers 16) and many people today accuse
CCM Minutes – February 2, 2018 – Page 100