# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 29 1994_S2
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Prior to the conference call, the Commission had available to it a response to the same three questions
which had been provided by Dr. Samuel Nafzger, executive director of the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations. After discussing the issues involved, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
After discussion, the Commission on Constitutional Matters concluded that matters involved in the
questions you posed were more properly within the purview of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations. It believes the response provided by Dr. Nafzger has spoken clearly to them. The Commission
is not aware of any specific resolutions adopted by the Synod which specifically address the questions
stated.
68. Proper Forum for Resolving Dispute (Ag. 1975) : In a communication from the President of the
Michigan District, the Commission was informed that a pastor in that district had attempted to use the
procedures of Chapter VIII in resolving a dispute. The dispute, however, was not with the district president
but with certain positions of the Synod which the president supported and with which the pastor did not
agree. The district president had met with the pastor and had also met with the pastor in the presence of a
reconciler. A further meeting had been held with Dr. Nafzger and the president and pastor.
The question which the district president now presented for consideration by the Commission on
Constitutional Matters was the following:
Is the process prescribed by Chapter VIII of the Synod's Handbook the proper forum for resolving a
dispute between a pastor who holds that a district president errs when he seeks to uphold and implement
the position of the Synod in accordance with the doctrinal statements and resolutions which the pastor
believes to be in conflict with the teaching of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions?
In response, the Commission decided to state the following:
If the situation is such as described in the question posed, namely that it is clear that the pastor
understands and concurs with the fact that he is not in agreement with positions of the Synod which the
district president seeks to uphold and implement, the dispute is not with the district president, but with the
Synod and there is nothing for a Dispute Resolution Panel to consider. The Dispute Resolution Process
found in Chapter VIII is not the proper forum for dealing with such situations nor is it intended to be a
platform for securing a wider audience for views which are at variance with positions adopted by and
practiced with approval of the Synod.
The proper forum for dealing with disagreements with positions of the Synod is the process for
expressing dissent as outlined in Bylaw 2.39, which is an amplification and further delineation of Bylaw
1.09 dealing with Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements.
If the district president were to suspend a member for teaching contrary to the position of the Synod, the
member could indeed request a hearing with respect to the action of the district president. It should be
understood, however, that if the same conditions prevail, that is, that there is agreement on the part of
both the member and the district president as to the position of the Synod, the position of the Synod is not
a matter for consideration by a Dispute Resolution Panel. The only proper question would be whether the
member has taught, is teaching, and intends to continue to teach contrary to the synodical position. If the
answer to these questions is, "yes," there is no matter for the Dispute Resolution Panel to resolve. It could,
in fact, be argued that unless the district president supported the positions of the Synod with which the
member does not agree and failed to take the necessary action, that the district president would himself be
subject to censure or further discipline for failing to carry out his responsibilities under Bylaw 4.71 b.
If a question is in dispute regarding what the position of the Synod is in a specific area, that issue is dealt
with in Bylaw 8.21 i which provides for the request for an opinion of the Commission on Theology and