# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_November 4 5 1994_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

remove himself from the ecclesiastical supervision of the District President before the matter is
satisfactorily resolved, other than by resignation from the roster of the Synod.
Finally, the Commission holds that the six-month time limit in Bylaw 2.23 d and the sixty-day period in
Bylaw 2.29 e do not include the period from when an opinion was requested of the Commission to the
date this opinion was received by the parties, in the same fashion as prescribed in Bylaw 8.21 i.
The final paragraph of the response to the District President was included since the Commission had not
had the opportunity to meet in a timely manner and respond to the request which had been made.
96. Adequacy of Guidelines for Constitution and Bylaws of a Congregation (Ag. 1991) : A member of a
congregational Constitution Committee had asked whether the guidelines for the Constitution and Bylaws
of a congregation could be used, and whether they were doctrinally and legally acceptable. Pastors of the
congregation had presented a critique of the proposed revisions. The Secretary had responded personally to
some of the questions which had been raised. In view of the fact that it is the responsibility of the District
Constitution Committee to review constitutions of congregations and to approve them or require changes,
the Commission on Constitutional Matters of the Synod declined to deal directly with the issue.
97. Unofficial Reconciliation as Related to Dispute Resolution (Ag. 1992) : A pastor had asked the
Commission to address the following questions, "Is what is called, Informal Unofficial Reconciliation,
recognized as part of the synodical dispute resolution process? Does what is called, Informal Unofficial
Reconciliation, replace either step of settling disputes of following Matthew 18, or entering into the formal
synodical Dispute Resolution Process? According to the synodical dispute resolution process, are
suggestions, recommendations, or decisions made in the, Informal Unofficial Reconciliation, process
binding to the pastor, the parties involved, and members of the congregation?"
After considering the request, the Commission decided to respond as follows:
The matter of unofficial reconciliation is difficult to address without knowing some specifics. However,
as described, the Commission would not consider the "Informal, Unofficial Reconciliation" as being
part of the Dispute Resolution Process of Bylaws, Chapter VIII. Rather, it might fall into the category
of the actions of the District President to use all means at his disposal to resolve a dispute before it
enters the process defined in Chapter VIII. Care has always been taken to point out that if a District
President uses one of the reconcilers to assist him, that same person cannot be used in the Dispute
Resolution Process of Chapter VIII.
Decisions made in the "Informal, Unofficial Reconciliation" are not binding to any of the parties
involved unless they are those to which the parties themselves agree. If they have reached an
agreement, it would seem that they are morally bound to carry out the decisions reached.
As to whether "Informal, Unofficial Reconciliation" replaces either the step of following Matthew 18 or
entering the formal Dispute Resolution Process, that would be the responsibility of the reconciler to
determine if the dispute moves to the Chapter VIII process. Matthew 18 cannot be omitted, and the first
responsibility of the "official" reconciler would be that of determining whether the provision of a faceto-face meeting in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute has taken place. It might be determined that
it has taken place in an "Informal, Unofficial Reconciliation." If that were the determination, the
"official" reconciler could proceed to try to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.
98. Request for Reconsideration of Membership Definition (Ag. 1993) : Mr. Christian Preus, a layman
in the Synod, had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to reconsider its decision regarding the