# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_September 14 1999_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

6. Concerning Bylaw 2.23, paragraph f: Is the District President required to notify the body who has
called the restricted pastor that he has been placed on restricted status, or is this only a requirement
when placed on suspended status?
Response to Question 6: Comparing Bylaw 2.23, f, and Bylaw 2.25, d, 3, it is apparent that the District
President need not notify the calling body that a pastor has been placed on restricted status, but must notify
the calling body if the pastor is placed on suspended status.
The Commission also noted the following final paragraph in the letter from the dispute panel:
It was also pointed out that Walter Tesch, Commission Chairman, served as legal counsel to the South
Wisconsin District while the case we are hearing was unfolding and may be put in a position where
conflict of interest could exist.
Response: The Commission responds to this concern regarding the potential for conflict of interest on the
part of its Chairman by clarifying that the material furnished to the Commission did not identify the parties
to the dispute. Mr. Tesch is therefore unable to determine whether such a conflict of interest does exist.
Nonetheless, he has acceded to the concern raised and has not participated in this opinion of the
Commission.
56. Questions Re Rights of Individuals and Congregations (99-2157)
A Dispute Resolution Panel in a July 16, 1999 letter submitted a series of questions for clarification of a
number of details from its dispute case, questions raised by the complainant in the case. The Commission
responded in an August 11, 1999 letter to the panel as follows:
1. In Matthew 18:17, where it says “Tell it to the Church”, the question is “Who is the Church”?
Response to Question 1: The function of the Commission on Constitutional Matters is to interpret the
Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions (Bylaw 3.905, d). The question is one of doctrine or
doctrinal application and thus should be addressed to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in
accord with Bylaw 8.21, a.
2. What does the phrase “inexpedient as far as the condition of the congregation is concerned” mean
and how is it applied in matters relating to the right of self-government of LC-MS Congregations?
Response to Question 2: The phrase in question is taken from Article VII of the Constitution of the Synod,
which states:
In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or
coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but an
advisory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the individual
congregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be
inexpedient as far as the condition of the congregation is concerned.
It should be noted that the second sentence of Article VII states, “…no resolution of the Synod…”
(emphasis added). It does not speak of the Constitution or Bylaws of the Synod. “The right of a
congregation to exercise the right of expediency (Bylaw 1.09b) applies only to resolutions of the Synod and
not to the Constitution and Bylaws” (1969 Res. 5-23).
Bylaw 1.05, d, elaborates on the principle set forth in Article VII: