# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 18 1998_S6
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

2. Would it be a violation of the guidelines of Matt. 18 and Bylaw 2.27.a.2 for the Praesidium to refuse
to allow the accused to be present in a meeting where the charges are being brought against him by
the complainants to the appeal?
In answering this request, the Commission responded as follows:
The Commission will address the second question first.
It is the view of this Commission that these questions confuse the process of investigating allegations
with the process of bringing charges based on the results of an investigation. While it is clear that prior
to the bringing of charges Matt. 18:15-16 must be followed' (witness Bylaw 2.27, d, which provides
that if the member against whom charges are brought requests a hearing by a Dispute Resolution Panel,
the Secretary of the Synod shall be provided with various materials, including a written memorandum
describing the manner in which there was compliance with the mandate of Matt. 18:15- this
Commission views that requirement as a part of the process of bringing charges against a member of
Synod. The investigation of allegations occurs prior to and separate from the bringing of charges
(witness Bylaw 2.27, b, which indicates that the Praesidium may determine not to proceed with a
complaint and thus end the matter). It would not be improper to meet separately with the accusers in
investigating charges against a member of Synod. Thus, the answer to Question No. 2 is no.
Bylaw 2.27 is silent on the point in a dispute at which the procedure of Matt. 18:15-16 should be
followed. It is obvious that if the Praesidium is involved in a matter the District President has already
declined to act (Bylaw 2.27, b). It is also likely, therefore, that the District President would not have
carried out the requirements of Matt. 18:15-16 and the Praesidium would have to fulfill those
requirements before bringing charges. If the District President or the person or persons who initially
brought the charges did follow the procedure of Matt. 18:15-16 with respect to the specific charges
which were ultimately brought by the Praesidium, it would not be necessary for the Praesidium to
duplicate those efforts. The answer to Question No. 1 is probably yes.
The Commission believes that this response answers the questions you have addressed to it.

'THE COMMISSION OBSERVES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE DISTRICT PRESIDENT OR THE PRAESIDIUM WHICH WILL FULFILL THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MATT. 18. IF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO BRING THE CHARGES HAVE ALREADY FULFILLED THIS REQUIREMENT, IT
NEED NOT BE REPEATED BY THE DISTRICT PRESIDENT OR THE PRAESIDIUM. HOWEVER, AT SOME POINT THE PROCEDURE OF MATT. 18
MUST BE FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC CHARGES WHICH ARE ULTIMATELY BROUGHT IF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES
CHANGES OR EVOLVES DURING THE INVESTIGATION, THE PERSON CHARGED SHOULD BE ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE NEW
CHARGES BROUGHT TO HIM UNDER MATT. 18.

145. Congregational Membership (Ag. 2091): Questions had been posed to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters regarding the necessity of a pastor being a communicant member of the
congregations of which he is the pastor. Other related questions were also posed for the Commission. In
dealing with these issues, the Commission responded as follows:
In a general response to the first two questions addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters
in your letter of December 2, 1997, the Commission states that church polity involves more than the
Constitution and Bylaws which the Commission is responsible for interpreting. Within the scope of its
authority to provide such interpretation, the Commission concludes that