# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 14 1989_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Subsequent to providing that response, the President had asked for further clarification on two key points.
He stated that he understood the opinion of the Commission to say that the President might indeed
authorize one or more vice presidents to perform the president's duty to provide informal reconciliation
efforts under Bylaw 8.05,a, including service of a small committee, but that the President would retain
accountability for the actions of the vice presidents so authorized. He stated that he further understood
that because the accountability would remain with the President in such an instance, it would be better not
to speak of such authorization as a "delegation of responsibility." He wished to know whether he had
understood the Commission correctly on this point.
In a second question, inquiry was made with regard to the comments made by the Commission on the
"admonition" referred to in Bylaw 8.07,b. The President stated that he understood and was helped by
what had been said about admonition but that his original question referred to "the admonition stated in
Bylaw 8.07,b" not only to an admonition or advice that might be given during informal reconciliation
efforts. In formulating his question, he had particular reference to the second sentence of Bylaw 8.07,b,
which he understood to be a general admonition from the Synod itself directed to all parties. It was his
view that understanding was fortified by the strong language of that sentence in stating, "The Synod calls
upon, etc." The President asked whether he was correct in his understanding that this sentence is, in fact,
an admonition that must be heeded unless there are reasonable grounds for not doing so. If so, was the
judgment as to whether there had been an unreasonable refusal to heed the admonition to be made by the
Commission on Adjudication whether or not the point is specifically made in any informal reconciliation
efforts that may take place?
In the response to Dr. Bohlmann's question in paragraph 2, the Commission stated that he had correctly
understood its response regarding the use of vice presidents in reconciliation efforts and the ultimate
responsibility of the President.
In response to the second question, the Commission resolved to reply as follows:
a) The ultimate reference in the second sentence of Bylaw 8.07,b is certainly to the admonition
contained in 1 Cor. 6:1-7.
b) The intervention of the second sentence of 8.07,b contains an "admonition" to use the Synod's
system. The immediate reference of the third sentence would appear to be the admonition of
sentence 2 which is based, in turn, on the biblical admonition of sentence 1.
c) Although ignorance of the admonition of the second sentence may not be an excuse, one
would have to allow that someone who has taken a case to court might not be aware of it.
d) Consequently, it can be assumed that while this point need not be specifically made during
reconciliation efforts, it was most certainly be wise to do so and not to depend on applying
the letter of the law.
12. Forfeiture of Rights Under 8.07,b (Ag. 1874) : The synodical Commission on Adjudication, aware
of the requests of the President of the Synod regarding questions pertaining to interpretation of Bylaws
8.05,a and 8.07,b, requested an opinion from the Commission on Constitutional Matters responding to the
question, "What body decides whether a person has forfeited his rights under Chapter VIII by violating
the provisions of 8.07,b? The Commission on Constitutional Matters? or The Commission on
Adjudication?"
In responding to this matter, the Commission decided to respond as follows: