# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_August 28 1996_S5
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

It is difficult to separate procedure from the "justness" of the reasons for excommunication.
Consequently, it is extremely important that proper procedure be affirmed, but also that
such procedures are not utilized as a mere "show of right," that is, that merely because
proper procedures are followed, other issues are of no importance.
4. Bylaw 8.07 states: "d. If informal reconciliation efforts do not resolve the matter, the
reconciler shall direct the respondent to submit to the reconciler and the complainant a
written reply responding to the statement of the matter in dispute." May a reconciler during
and as part of the informal reconciliation stage direct the respondent to prepare and
exchange with the complainants a document regarding actions which it took?
While the reconciler may not require this, he could legitimately urge that this be done to aid
the two parties in identifying the issues and in stating positions so that they can more easily
and profitably discuss their differences at the face-to-face level and attempt to seek a
solution to them.
5. Does Chapter VIII provide for, or allow, ex parte communications between the reconciler and
a party, except for routine arrangements? Where all parties do not agree to such a
procedure, may a reconciler counsel the parties "individually" in their efforts toward
reconciliation? Is such reconciler's ex parte counseling of parties contrary to Bylaw 8.21 (d)
which provides that neither party shall communicate with the reconciler without the "full
knowledge of the other party to the dispute"?
If the communication simply involves questions of procedure or of issues regarding
"routine arrangements," such communication would not be a violation of either the spirit or
the letter of the law. However, any ex parte communication which deals with the merits of
the matter or which involves counsel on them being provided by the reconciler would
constitute a violation of the bylaw.
6. It is our understanding that in an excommunication case the only matters in which a
reconciler may inquire or a dispute resolution panel may decide are "procedural question
involved in excommunication cases" Bylaw 8.13 (b)(1). In such an excommunication case,
may a reconciler direct the respondent church to document the criteria which in its opinion
"justified ... the actions taken . . ." May a respondent church decline to submit such a
document?
The answer to this question is provided in the response to question three above.
7. Is a congregation member excommunicated when a church voters' assembly recognizes a
member's withdrawal from fellowship and removes his or her name from the congregation's
membership list as a result of such a member joining another congregation that is not in
doctrinal fellowship?
This is a theological, not a constitutional question which should therefore be presented to
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.
8. Is a congregation member excommunicated when a church voters' assembly recognizes a
member's withdrawal from fellowship and removes his or her name from the congregation's
membership list as a result of such a member refusing to submit to brotherly admonition
and correction when he has erred?