# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_December 16 1999_S10
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

6.47, c). This section also sets forth a detailed process for reconciliation and resolution of the matter by a
hearing if necessary. It provides for a Review Committee to decide the issue, which decision shall be final
except in cases where the complaint involves conduct under Bylaw 6.43, c, 5 (conduct unbecoming a
Christian) or 6.43, c, 6 (false doctrine). In those cases the complainant may, after the Review Committee
renders its decision,. "take the complaint to the District President, who shall follow the procedure set forth
in Bylaw 2.27" (Bylaw 6.47, g).
Although Bylaw 2.27 might also be read to apply in the case of a university faculty member separately
and as an alternative to Bylaw 6.47, the Commission believes that this was not intended to be the case.
Bylaw 6.47 is specific to the situation of a university faculty member, whereas Bylaw 2.27 is general and
applies to any member of the Synod. A common maxim of interpretation of documents such as statutes
and bylaws holds that if two provisions disagree, the more specific controls over the more general one.
Thus Bylaw 6.47, being more specific, would apply rather than Bylaw 2.27. Additional support for this
conclusion is found in Bylaw 6.45, b, which accords finality to decision under Bylaw 6.47 with no right
of appeal except as provided in Bylaw 6.47, b (relating to charges of conduct unbecoming a Christian and
advocacy of false doctrine). It is apparent from this section that the procedure in Bylaw 6.47 is intended to
be primary in all cases, and that in two specified cases only may the procedure of Bylaw 2.27 be applied
after the provisions of Bylaw 6.47 have been followed.
86. Question Re District President Responsibility for Roster Classification (99-2166)
A parish pastor in a letter dated September 23, 1999, asked the Commission to respond to the following
two questions:
QUESTION 1: "Does a District President have the constitutional right and/or privilege to change the title
and, therefore, the status of a pastor (for example, from "Pastor" to "Assistant Pastor" or "Associate
Pastor") without consultation with the pastor and/or the congregation?"
QUESTION 2: "Does a District President have the constitutional right and/or privilege to change the title
and voting status of a pastor in the circuit, district, and synod without informing the pastor or the
congregation that he has made such a change?"
OPINION: The Commission observes that under Bylaw 2.45, b, a congregation has the right to call
ordained and commissioned ministers. The call document defines the position to which the minister is
called and the position's responsibilities, which also determine the roster classification of the Synod. A
District President has no authority to change any of the terms of a call document.
Article V, A, of the Constitution of the Synod states that at meetings of the District each congregation is
entitled to two votes, one by the pastor and one by the lay delegate. Furthermore, Bylaws 2.43 and 4.77
give to the District President the responsibility of rostering pastors. Therefore, the Commission concludes
that when a congregation has two or more pastors, the congregation has the responsibility to define their
positions, to thereby indicate the classification of the pastors, and, if they are to be "associate pastors," to
determine which of the pastors shall exercise the right of franchise. It is the responsibility of the
congregation to keep the District President informed as to the status of its pastors so that he can report
roster changes to the Secretary of the Synod in a timely manner. Failure to do so forces the District
President to exercise judgment in carrying out his responsibility under Bylaw 4.77.
87. Question Re Term Limits for Circuit Counselors (99-2167)
A District Secretary in an October 7, 1999 letter requested the opinion of the Commission regarding the
applicability of his District's bylaw regarding term limitations to Circuit Counselors. In his letter he notes
that term limitations have not been applied to Circuit Counselors in the past possibly due to an
"understanding that the Counselors are officers of the Synod and not officers of the District."

140