# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 5 1992_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

statement of the case in writing by a complainant to the president of the district who has ecclesiastical
supervision over the congregation, investigation by the district president, and a decision as to whether to
proceed with suspension of the individual member or congregation. If the decision was to proceed, the
procedures identified in 2.27 c and d would be followed. If the decision was not to proceed, the complaint,
on the basis of 2.27 f could be brought to the Praesidium which would determine whether to proceed or not
to proceed. If the decision was not to proceed, that would terminate the matter.
Since that time, the pastor had brought the complaint to the district president who stated in writing to the
pastor that he was seeking to resolve the matter and that he would not forward it to the Commission on
Adjudication. The Chairman of the District Commission on Adjudication had also informed the pastor that
because the matter was not in adjudication, it would be dealt with under the new dispute resolution
procedure adopted at the 1992 synodical convention. The pastor challenged this statement and contacted the
Commission on Appeals, asking whether he had the right to present to the matter directly to the District
Commission on Adjudication. The Commission on Appeals had informed the pastor that they had
concluded that he was permitted to present his charges directly to the California-Nevada-Hawaii District
Commission on Adjudication. It stated that based upon the facts enumerated by the pastor, it was the
consensus of the Commission on Appeals that adjudication was already in process and that the provisions of
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws then in effect would apply.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters had now received a request from the President of the CaliforniaNevada-Hawaii District expressing concern about the matter of jurisdiction, stating that he did not believe
that such a decision as had been made by the Commission on Appeals belonged to that commission.
In discussion of the request, the Commission on Constitutional Matters noted that it had previously ruled on
this question and had specifically stated in two cases that a matter could not be taken directly to the
Commission on Adjudication, bypassing the Praesidium as outlined in Bylaw 2.27. Furthermore, in the
discussion, it was pointed out that the district president may defer adjudication if he feels that other
procedures are to be followed first. To defer the matter means that it is not in adjudication. In effect, the
Commission agreed that matters as to which a complaint had not been filed, that is, where the formal
adjudication process had not begun, were to be dealt with under the new dispute resolution process.
Attention was also called to resolves of Res. 5-01B of the 1992 Pittsburgh convention which stated
Resolved, That all cases currently under the adjudication or appeals process be concluded under the
existing Bylaws governing adjudication and appeals; and be it further
Resolved, That this new procedure shall apply to all dispute resolutions initiated after the date of adoption
of this amendment without regard to the date of onset of the dispute.
The official opinion of the Commission is to be prepared and a draft circulated to all members of the
Commission prior to that opinion being forwarded to the district president who had requested the opinion
from the Commission.
13. Constitutionality of Congregation Bylaw (Am. 1939) : A request had been received from the
President of the Texas District regarding a congregational constitutional bylaw provision which dealt with
removal from office of an elected church officer or a called worker.
The Commission decided to respond as follows:
Ordinarily the Commission on Constitutional Matters does not deal with congregational constitutions or
bylaws but considers them to be within the jurisdiction of the District Constitution Committee. The
Commission on Constitutional Matters, however, is considering your request as a request for guidance