# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 6 7 1987_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

hypothetical, does not feel it proper to raise these suggestions to the level of an opinion. However, all
parties can consider these suggestions as the potential thinking of this body.
82. Doctrinal Supervision (Ag. 1827) : The former president and first vice president had addressed a
number of questions to the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the responsibility for
doctrinal supervision within the Synod. In response to the series of questions which had been posed, the
Commission decided to respond as follows:
The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod speak quite articulately regarding the responsibility of
doctrinal supervision. Therefore, our response to your many questions will not be in the character
of a formal opinion, but rather a review of the statements contained in the Constitution and its
Bylaws as the Commission understands them.
The Constitution of the Synod assigns the task of doctrinal supervision as a primary responsibility
to the office of the synodical President. It is primary in that the accountability for doctrinal
supervision always remains with the office of the President. It covers all who are "employed" by
the Synod such as the First Vice President, all executive staff personnel, and the faculty members
of our synodical colleges and seminaries. The President's jurisdiction also covers officers of the
Synod, the district presidents, and the individual districts of the Synod. (XI B la; D; C 1; and
3.101 m; 4.73; 3.101 a, b; and 2.41 a, i and j.)
In various areas or levels, it is evident that this is a shared responsibility. For example:
1. A district president would have this responsibility among the pastors and
congregations of his district. Among such may be a synodical officer, members of a
college or seminary of the Synod members of the synodical executive staff (2.41 a, d,
i and j).
2. The president of a seminary or college of the Synod would also have this
responsibility in relationship to the members of the respective faculties. (6.15
opening sentence; 6.15 f, i, j, and 6.43 c, 6.)
In this function of responsibility no bylaw is in evidence which would allow or
even suggest that the institutional president delegate this responsibility. Where
such delegation is arbitrarily practiced, the institutional president is fully
responsible for such supervision.
For a president to disclaim responsibility because of absence when even a Board
of Regents rules is simply avoiding an assigned responsibility.
3. Boards of Regents are also assigned a share of this responsibility (6.45 b). However,
a BOR can act only when specific charges are filed. An individual member of the
board or the president can file charges. As a board, it should not file charges and, at
the same time, adjudicate them.
According to 6.45 b, a BOR can investigate charges. If, subsequently, the
complainant wishes to pursue the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, the charges
must be presented in writing. The BOR shall then direct the president to deal
with it to the satisfaction of all concerned. Charges against the president of the
institution are to be dealt with by the chairman of the BOR (6.47 a).