# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 8 11 2023_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Opinion:

There is no advisor provided in the 2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process.

Question 4:

Must any advisor to an individual member of Synod who is on restricted status be appointed
by the applicable district president or approved by the district president? If “yes,” how does
this ensure due process, fairness, and impartiality?

Opinion:

There is no advisor provided in the 2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process.

Question 5:

May a district president prevent an individual member of Synod from serving as an advisor
to another individual member of Synod by exercising ecclesiastical discipline against her
or him? If “'yes,” how does this ensure due process, fairness, and impartiality?

Opinion:

There is no advisor provided in the 2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process. Should the case of an
individual who had been placed on restricted status proceed to a Bylaw section 2.14 or 2.17
process, the member, who is now on suspended status, may choose anyone as an advisor
in accordance with the Bylaws and the controlling Standard Operating Procedures
Manual.
Any such advisor, if a member of the Synod, remains even in his or her conduct as an
advisor under the ecclesiastical supervision of his or her district president. It is conceivable
that a member of the Synod in serving as an advisor could act in such a way that he or she
would put his or her own membership in the Synod in jeopardy.
It was unclear to the commission if this question is also intended to be in relation to the
advisor referenced in the following question. If so, see the response to question 6.

Question 6:

The February 2020 edition of the Circuit Visitors’ Manual states the following concerning
the choice for an advisor when a pastor might be facing possible removal from office by a
congregation’s voters assembly: “The district president is encouraged to appoint a pastoral
adviser [sic] for the pastor to assist him in examining the charges and preparing biblical
responses to charges.” (5 a, p. 275) “The pastor is encouraged to have an advisor with him
during this meeting to assist him in preparing his biblical responses to charges. This advisor
is to be appointed by the district president.” (7 g, p. 275). Assuming that the CCM reviews
and approves this manual, how does this procedure constitute due process, fairness, and
impartiality (especially if the district president himself has placed the individual member
of Synod on restrictive status or suspended status)?

Opinion:
The section of the Circuit Visitors Manual quoted in the question is a portion of a larger
section of that same manual that addresses the role of the District President when there is a conflict between
a congregation and its pastor that has degenerated to the point where the congregation is considering
terminating the pastor’s divine call. As described in Article III 9 of the LCMS Constitution, the district
president is responsible for the well-being both of the congregation and the pastor and to help both through
these difficult times.
In carrying out this responsibility for both, the document included in the Circuit Visitors Manual encourages
the district president to appoint a pastoral advisor for the pastor as well as to consider appointing an advisor
for the congregation. The appointment of an advisor in these instances is not addressed in the Bylaws.
The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not require the pastor or congregation to accept the advisor
appointed by the district or prohibit their seeking advice from other sources. It is nonetheless conceivable
and consistent with a district president’s office that he might advise against having a certain individual
serve as an advisor out of concern that it would not prove helpful in resolving the matter at hand.
Question 7:

In the LCMS adjudication process, do the same rights and privileges afforded to ordained
ministers of religion in the LCMS Bylaws, SOPM, and other documents apply also to
commissioned ministers of religion? If not, how does this ensure due process, fairness, and
impartiality?
CCM Minutes – June 8–12, 2023 – Page 148