# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 28 1996_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

within the general objective stated in Bylaw 3.393, the Commission does not find that such
loans are either explicitly permitted or prohibited. It may be that while loans for sites or
facilities are not made to partner churches directly, the same objective of assisting partner
churches may be achieved if such loans are made to the Synod which grants funds to partner
churches under conditions of repayment.
The response to your second question is an unconditional yes. Because of the synodical
President's responsibility under Bylaw 3. 10 1, f and g, as well as that referenced in Bylaw
3.925, a, 2, no relations with partner churches are to be undertaken without the knowledge and
consent of the President.
The response to your third question is an unqualified no. The Bylaws are very explicit, as you
have noted, in Bylaw 3.905, f, as well as 3.187, requiring review by the Commission on
Constitutional Matters and giving it the authority to require amendments to bring Articles of
Incorporation of synodical entities into conformity with the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod. Consequently, it is clear that changes may not be made in the Articles of Incorporation
of LCEF without such review although it is not stated that such changes need to be reported to
the Synod. The important point is that such changes may not be made nor may the LCEF
operate under such changes unless they have had the necessary approval.
64. Dispute Resolution Procedure Questions (Ag. 2045) : A pastor and the Board of Elders of a
congregation had posed a number of questions for consideration by the Commission on Constitutional
Matters, the majority of which related to use of the dispute resolution process. The final two questions
which were posed related to the possible suspension and removal of a congregation or pastor publicly
teaching that woman suffrage is contrary to the Scriptures. The questions and response provided by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters are as follows:
1 . Bylaw 8.05 states that: "Before any matter is submitted to the formal reconciliation process,
the parties involved in a dispute must meet together face-to-face, on a good-faith attempt to
settle their dispute (Matt. 18:15)." Where there has been no such face-to-face meeting, to
what extent may a reconciler appointed under Bylaw 8.07 (a) and (b) do anything? If so,
what? Also, does "must" as used in Bylaw 8.05 mean "shall"?
The reconciler is authorized to determine whether the face-to-face meeting has taken place
between the parties involved. If it has not, he may direct them to do so. The word "must"
does mean shall.
2. Where a layman challenges removal from congregational membership by invoking the
reconciliation processes of Chapter VIII of the LCMS Bylaws, is our understanding correct
that the only access of such a layman to Chapter VIII reconciliation processes is on
"procedural questions involved in excommunication cases" as is provided in Bylaw 8.13
(b)(1)?
Yes, the matter to be dealt with in excommunication cases is proper procedure. If there are
doctrinal or theological issues involved, the District President has the responsibility for
ecclesiastical supervision.
3. Is our understanding correct that a reconciler and a Dispute Resolution Panel are limited in
such cases to procedural questions involved in an excommunication case and may not
inquire about nor evaluate the "merits" of nor the "justness" of the reasons for an
excommunication?