# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_March 5 6 1976_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

32. Ralph Gehrke (Ag. 921): Dr. Ralph Gehrke, formerly of Concordia, River Forest, had raised four
questions. The questions and the replies adopted by the Commission are as follows:
1) "Is a member of Synod who has been cleared of charges by the proper synodical supervisory
agency obliged to respond to attempts to continue the case on the basis of the same charges?"
The answer to this question is obvious: He is not obligated to respond if he has been cleared
at the final level. The immediate problem in this case is the last clause: was the individual
indeed cleared by the proper synodical supervisory agency? The present Handbook outlines
procedures in the case of a faculty member under Section 6.79. These were adopted by the
New Orleans convention in 1973. But, the Commission ruled that your case is governed by
the earlier provisions which are much less definite. However, when indeed the proper
synodical supervisory agency at the final level has cleared the individual, the case is closed
and he is no longer obliged to respond to the charges.
2) "Can charges which may involve expulsion from the Synod be indefinitely continued against
a member of Synod after the case has been repeatedly heard over a number of years and
no final disposition has been made?"
A District president may not delay informing the accused that an accusation has been
made against him. The District president is expected to determine within a reasonable
time whether suspension is warranted and is bound by the time limits prescribed in
Section 5.13. A Commission of Adjudication must ordinarily reach a decision within
three months (5.31 m).
The general thrust of the bylaws is that the individual is entitled to a prompt hearing
of his case. However, it is also assumed that the individual himself will cooperate by
making himself available and by following the steps prescribed by the bylaws or
requested by the proper synodical agency.
3) "Can a member of Synod who is under charges in such a way in the meantime be deprived
of the rights and privileges of synodical membership, such as routine transfer from one
District to another, eligibility for a call, etc.? Does not the principle hold also in such a case
that one is innocent until proved guilty?"
A suspended individual retains his rights. However, it would seem that a case
involving charges which may involve expulsion from the Synod ought be decided
before a transfer of membership is granted since he is still under the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the president of the District in which the alleged offense took place.
Presumably some actions have already been taken in the case; it would be poor
stewardship to ask that such actions be initiated once again. Moreover, the District
president is required to act promptly in informing the individual that charges have
been made against him. He may not delay his decision beyond a reasonable time on
whether the individual is to be suspended and the case turned over to the Commission
of Adjudication. The Commission of Adjudication is required ordinarily to reach a
decision within three months.
It is indeed a principle of American jurisprudence that an individual is presumed
innocent until he is proven guilty. This, however, does not mean that he is innocent
but rather that the burden of proof rests on those bringing the charges.