# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 21 22 2025_S12
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

“However, he may not assume this responsibility for other congregations that are not under his care or for
the general public...”
While the “responsibilities outlined in the Bylaws and Constitution relative to Matthew 18” apply to Synod
members, no matter their other vocations or avocations, how those responsibilities apply to particular
communications or situations depends on the particulars of the given case.
The commission thanks the district president for the question, and if further insight is sought, would
encourage him to consult the Commission on Theology and Church Relations document “Public Rebuke
of Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment”
(May 2006).
102. North Dakota District Bylaws, As Provisionally Adopted (25-3047)
By an email of January 30, the Secretary of the North Dakota (ND) District forwarded the district’s bylaws
as adopted by the district’s January convention, partially in response to Op. 20-2948B (namely, at Bylaws
2.7.1.2, 2.9.7.3, and 2.9.9–2.9.9.9), and partly to adapt to Synod bylaw changes, to clarify vacancy
procedures, and to adjust term limitations (namely, at Bylaws 1.9–1.9.5, 2.3.2, 2.9.1). The districts articles
were reviewed as compliant with Bylaw 1.5.3.6 in Op. 18-2896.
With regard to changes not previously approved, adopted provisionally and forwarded for review under
Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3 (b), the commission notes:
•

ND Bylaw 1.9.5: The wording of this new paragraph needs to be corrected against the language of
Bylaw 3.1.2.1 (d).

•

ND Bylaw 2.9.9.2 should include also the remainder of Synod Bylaw 5.2.2 (b).

•

ND Bylaw 2.9.9.3: “Insure” should read “ensure.”

With these changes incorporated by the district board of directors as indicated in Synod Bylaw 3.9.2.2.3
(b), the commission approves the district bylaws as adopted by the convention; upon such modification, the
amendments—adopted contingent on the commission’s approval—therefore come into force and effect.
The district is thanked for the submission of these items for review and requested to convey, for the
commission’s files, a clean copy of the bylaws as adopted and adjusted, subject to the procedure of Bylaw
3.9.2.2.3 (b).
In its review of the bylaws generally, the commission noted for the district’s future consideration and
revision:
•

ND Bylaw 1.2.2: While the content is not objectionable, this should not be classed under “eligibility
for membership” as it seems to create a unique standard for the district.

•

Bylaw sections 1.3 and 1.7: The separation and reordering of the material present in Synod Bylaws
sections 2.2 through 2.4 (and generally, the reproduction and rearrangement of material from Synod
Bylaw sections 2.2 through 2.10) renders the ND Bylaws confusing.

•

Bylaw 1.3.3: The district secretary is surely intended here but the congregation secretary is the most
recent referent. It may be well to make this “The district secretary…”

•

Bylaw 1.5: The reference is actually to Synod Bylaws 1.3.4–1.3.4.2.

•

Bylaw section 2.5: The bylaws should state that the treasurer must be a layperson (Synod Bylaw
4.3.2).

•

Bylaws 2.6.1.2–5: These bylaws seem to presume (cf. Synod Bylaw 5.2.3.1) that the district
president requests the circuit visitors to assist in his triennial visitation. It should be clear some of
these functions are only at his request.
CCM Minutes – March 21–22, 2025 – Page 79