# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_undated_S3
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

carry out the provisions of Bylaw 6.47 and conduct an investigation according to the requirements of that
section.
The short answer to both questions is “yes.” The Commission finds that Bylaw 6.47 is the proper
mechanism for dealing with a complaint against a member of an institution’s faculty or administration
concerning any matter, and that this bylaw may not be circumvented by a convention resolution which
seeks to establish a different method of handling such allegations.
Art. XII, 2, of the Synod’s Constitution provides that “[E]ach District is at liberty to adopt such bylaws and
pass such resolutions as it seems expedient for its conditions, provided that such bylaws and resolutions do
not conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.” The resolution in question, in its fourth
WHEREAS, asserts that “members of the faculty of Concordia Portland have expressed doctrinal positions
contrary to that of the Synod’s positions, such as advocating open communion and the ordination of women
to the Pastoral Office….” These allegations are serious enough to warrant removal from the faculty of
anyone who advocates them (Bylaw 6.43, c, 6). The Board of Regents is responsible for investigating such
charges (Bylaws 6.45 and 6.47). There is no other means stated in the Bylaws for dealing with such serious
allegations which, though stated against unnamed faculty members, are phrased in terms of specific
complaints. Bylaw 3.101, A, 2 provides that the President of the Synod shall “at regular intervals officially
visit or cause to be visited all the educational institutions of the Synod to exercise supervision over the
doctrine taught and practiced in those institutions.” Art. XI, B, 2 and 3, of the Constitution give the Synod’s
President the power to admonish and reprove those whose doctrine he finds in error, which would include
faculty members of a Synod university. In that regard, the Resolved clauses of the resolution in question ask
for action that is within the President’s power. However, the WHEREAS clauses of the resolution state
specific complaints against unnamed faculty members. Where such concrete and specific complaints exist,
the proper procedure to follow is that given under Bylaw 6.47. The Commission finds that the Iowa District
East resolution is contrary to Art. XII, 2, of the Synod’s Constitution because it seeks to establish a
procedure for investigating an allegation of false doctrine on the part of specific faculty members in a
Synod university which runs counter to the procedure established in Bylaw 6.47 and therefore is out of
order. Because the resolution conflicts with the Synod’s Bylaws, it is not one that the Iowa District East
may properly adopt. (As a practical matter, since the resolution has in fact already been adopted by the
District, it might be more accurate to observe, as is explained infra, that such a resolution could not be
properly adopted by the convention.)
The sixth WHEREAS of Resolution 3-16 states that attempts have been made to address the concerns stated
in the resolution pursuant to Bylaws 2.27 and 6.47, without success. Does this support a resolution that
mandates a different approach than the one under Bylaw 6.47? The answer is no. The Commission notes
that in the case of an allegation of false doctrine, Bylaw 6.47, g, provides that if the complaining party is
dissatisfied with the results of the process in that bylaw, a complaint may be taken to the appropriate
District President under Bylaw 2.27. 3 Likewise, under Bylaw 2.27, b, if the complaining party is unhappy
with the way the District President deals with the matter (either because the District President fails to act
within 90 days or declines to suspend the member), the complaint may be taken to the Praesidium. By
following the procedures set forth in Bylaws 6.47 and 2.27 Iowa District East can eventually request an
investigation by the Praesidium if it is not satisfied by the handling of the matter by the Board of Regents
and the District President. This would seem to be the same result that the resolution in question seeks to
achieve (or at least a very similar result), although the resolution seeks to cut out several intermediate steps.
Those steps, however, are mandated by the Bylaws and cannot be ignored or set aside unless the bylaw
itself is amended. Therefore the resolution conflicts with the Synod’s Bylaws and is therefore improper.
3

The complaint to the District President is a subsequent step to board of regents review, not an alternative avenue of complaint.
This is confirmed both by the location of Bylaw 6.47, g within that bylaw and by Bylaw 6.45, b, which provides that the Board of
Regents’ decision is final except that Bylaw 6.47, g allows further appeal to the District President.

203