# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 10 11 1992_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

changes which had been made in the charges which were brought. If these were merely wording changes
that did not affect the content of the charges, that would be one matter. If the actual content of the charges
was changed, that would be another. In either of those cases, a matter of fact would be involved and not a
bylaw interpretation. The determination of facts is responsibility of either a Commission on Adjudication
or the Commission on Appeals.
This response which had also previously been shared with members of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters was now officially ratified.
69. Supervision of Synodical President (Ag. 1915) : A pastor had asked the question of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters whether on the basis of Bylaw 3.533,d the President of The
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod was excluded from the responsibility placed upon the President of the
Missouri District in 4.73 of the Handbook of the Synod. The further question was asked, "If he is
excluded, to whom does a brother bring his concern when personal admonition to have the President of
the Synod carry out the responsibilities of his office as defined by the Handbook?" The Secretary had
prepared a possible response for consideration by the Commission on Constitutional Matters which
stated:
Pastor Otten's question is not easy to answer. I would assume that in some instances, such as if a
synodical President were serving as a pastor of a congregation in the district, the district president
would have responsibility for supervision.
However, if someone disagrees with the supervisory activity of the synodical President, it would
not seem that the district president is in a position to exercise supervisory responsibility over the
synodical President. Article XI of the Constitution is quite clear in that the synodical President
has supervision of a district president, an officer of the Synod. (XI,B,I,d). It is the Synod which
has the right to call its officers to account and to remove them from office in accordance with
Christian procedure. (XI,A,2). This is supported by Bylaw 3.103,c which states, "Any member of
the Synod shall have the right to appeal to the convention of the Synod from his [the President's]
action."
It would seem that the only recourse is an appeal to a convention of the Synod "when personal
admonition fails to have the President of the Synod carry out the responsibilities of his office as
defined by the Handbook." If the matter cannot wait until a regularly scheduled convention of the
Synod, a request can be made to the district presidents for the calling of a special convention. If
three-fourths of them agree, such a convention can be called. (VIII,B).
The one bylaw which may appear to contradict the above is 4.73. The question, however, is
whether the President of the Synod is "subject to his [the district president's] ecclesiastical
supervision." The previous argumentation provided would say that he is not.
The Commission agreed with the opinion which had been prepared and asked that the pastor be notified
that the matter had been under discussion but that the Commission had not had the opportunity to meet
face-to-face because of various time conflicts. A response had not been provided since the Commission
believed that the matter deserved the full attention of the Commission.
In addition, the feeling was that since the Commission had not received any further inquiry, it was
assumed that no immediate response was expected.
70. Election of Circuit Counselors Ag. 1920) : A district president had asked for an interpretation of
Bylaw 5.11 which provides that when no election of a circuit counselor has taken place in the circuit