# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_July 21 1993_S1
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

made a decision. The opinion of the Commission was that procedures outlined in Chapter VIII are to be
followed to their conclusion. It further noted that two parties are involved in a hearing and both are entitled
to a determination by the Panel. One cannot frustrate the right of the other party by simply withdrawing
once the hearing has been held. In addition, the Commission noted that Bylaw 8.09 e 4 provides for the
possibility that the decision of the Panel need not be publicized beyond it being known to the parties
involved. Such publicity is, of course, dependent on the appropriateness of any publicity in the judgment of
the district president.
43. Adjournment : Having concluded its business, the meeting was adjourned with prayer led by the
Secretary at the request of Chairman Groh.
Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters
July 21, 1993 Conference Call
44. Roll Call : The Commission met in telephone conference at 5:00 p.m. CDT. Present for the conference
were Roland Hopmann, Richard Schlecht, Walter Tesch and Secretary Walter Rosin. Chairman Groh was
unable to be present.
45. District Reconcilers (Ag. 1967) : The Commission had received a request to provide an opinion with
respect to the following questions:
1.

Is the use of Bylaws 8.07 a and 8.07 b limited by Bylaw 8.13 b? (It was pointed out that Bylaw 8.07
a appears to conflict with 8.13 b unless the "situations" listed in 8.13 b are not exclusive of other
situations.)

1.

If a complainant appeals to the district secretary under 8.07 a, is it inappropriate for the district
president in any way to interfere with the implementation of 8.07 b by the district secretary?

The Commission thoroughly discussed the matters, including the possibility of the need for considering
clarifying language in the future. After having done so, it agreed to provide an answer as follows:
In responding to the questions posed, the Commission on Constitutional Matters first concludes that it is
unable to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether Bylaw 8.13 is to be viewed as
exclusionary. It reaches this conclusion because contextually the Dispute Resolution Process is clearly
intended to provide an opportunity to resolve differences and disputes at the lowest level possible.
Viewed in this manner, if Bylaw 8.13, particularly 8.13 b 2, is understood to be exclusionary, it seems
contrary to the general thrust of Chapter VIII. The Commission further observes that actions taken in
order to bring Bylaw 8.13 b 2 into force without first utilizing the services of a reconciler as provided in
8.07 contradict the scriptural and ethical principles identified in the Preamble to Chapter VIII and the
purposes and objectives stated in Bylaw 8.01.
The Commission further notes that even if actions bringing Bylaw 8.13 b 2 into force are taken, the
chosen district reconciler plays an important part in the process of dispute resolution. Parties involved are
obligated to utilize the services of the reconciler to seek, with the reconciler's help, to reach a conclusion
regarding a means for dealing with their differences in a Christian manner.