# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 5 1992_S8
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

formal efforts would be necessary to resolve the problem. A question was now raised with regard to the
eligibility for using the dispute resolution process adopted at the 1992 convention of the Synod for
resolution of the issues. The specific question which was raised was this:
Do all of the parties involved in a dispute need to be members of the Synod, or do only some of the
parties need to be members of the Synod in order to use Article VIII to resolve a dispute?
The Commission determined to respond as follows:
In reviewing Bylaw 8.01 as adopted by the 1992 convention of the Synod, it is quite clear that for the
dispute resolution process identified in Chapter VIII to be used, (Check out hand written notes in the
original page 10 of this document) all parties to the disputes must be members of the Synod. The bylaw
states
This procedure is established to resolve, in a God-pleasing manner, disputes that involve as parties,
members of the Synod, the Synod itself, a district or an organization owned and controlled by the
Synod, persons involved in excommunication or lay members of congregations of the Synod holding
positions with the Synod itself or with districts or other organizations owned and controlled by the
Synod ...
It is clear then that only those who are members of the Synod or are in positions further identified in the
bylaw are eligible to utilize the synodical dispute resolution process.
In making this statement, however, the Commission would call attention to the final resolve of Res. 501B adopted at the 1992 convention which states
Resolved, That we encourage that the procedures outlined in Chapter VIII be adapted and used by
congregations and individuals in resolving controversies which may arise at the local level.
While the specific synodical dispute resolution process is not open to members of member congregations
unless they are in the positions described in Bylaw 8.01, the process which is outlined there could very
well be adapted in seeking to provide resolution and possible reconciliation between parties in which one
may be a member of the Synod and the other is not.
The Commission would note, however, that a person or persons who are not members of the Synod may
have a complaint against a member of the Synod and may bring that complaint to the attention of the
district president. In that case, if the complaint was such that it could ultimately result in the termination
of membership, that matter would then be dealt with under Bylaw 2.27ff.
The Commission hopes that this response will be helpful to you in resolving the situation which exists.
20, District President's Authority (Ag. 1945) : The Commission on Appeals had forwarded a request for
opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters which had been requested by parties to a dispute. As
requested by the Commission on Appeals, Walter Tesch, former member of that commission and now
member of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, recused himself. The questions which were
addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters and which the Commission on Appeals requested
be answered as drafted by the parties and not recast or reworded are as follows:
1.

Is it a constitutional requirement that a pastor continues seeking counsel about divorce from a
district president whose counseling relationship with that pastor has deteriorated and become
counterproductive?