LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 251

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
resolutions of the Synod are being carried out? If the
answer is “yes”’ in what sense is it a “conflict of interest” and how is conflict of interest then defined?
Opinion: The answer to the first part of this question is “no.” An
ecclesiastical supervisor carrying out his responsibilities of ecclesiastical supervision is not creating a conflict of interest with respect
to his duties and responsibilities imposed by the Constitution or
Bylaws.
A Bylaw 2.27 action against a District President falls within the
provisions of Bylaw 2.27 g, and the synodical President becomes the
investigating officer. Disqualification of the President of the Synod,
as with the District President, occurs where he is a party to the matter in dispute, has a conflict of interest, or is otherwise unable to act.
The fact that the investigating officer, whether a synodical or District
President, has been involved in performing his ecclesiastical responsibilities in supervising the accused party is in and of itself not a basis
for disqualification. In fact, the Constitution of the Synod presupposes
that since or when there is prior supervision, advice, or futile admonition regarding the activity giving rise to a charge, the synodically
designated ecclesiastical supervisor would have been involved in
that advice or admonition. Carrying out such responsibility does not
make the ecclesiastical supervisor a party to the matter in dispute nor
give rise to a conflict of interest. Rather, the duty to investigate flows
from and is a natural outgrowth of the District or synodical President’s
ecclesiastical supervisory responsibility.
Question 9: Under what constitutional provision, if any, may any
person or group, any board or commission, or any other
entity assume de jure or de facto the responsibility of
ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been
given alone to the synodical President or the District
President in his respective District? In other words, may
any entity that does not have the ecclesiastical supervision, which is the sole responsibility of the synodical
President or a District President, publicly reprove or
admonish another entity? If the answer is “yes” how
may the Synod avoid havoc, disorder and confusion?
Opinion: There is no constitutional provision that allows any person, group, board, commission or other entity to assume the responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been
given to the President of the Synod under Article XI B or the District President under Article XII 7. This includes the formal or official constitutional responsibility to admonish or reprove members
of the Synod. No one is to interfere in the work of another.
Adopted Jan. 20–21, 2003
Concerns re Opinion 02-2309 (03-2338B)
In a March 3, 2003, letter, a pastor of the Synod expressed concern
regarding an opinion of the CCM which he believes “has an unnecessarily pejorative spin to it” when it states that “implementation of
the dispute resolution process should never be intended or allowed
to disrupt, hamper, or harass the President as he carries out the duties
and responsibilities of his office, including those of ecclesiastical
supervision” (02-2309 response to question #3). He asked the Commission to “show specific proof from Scripture, the Confessions, and
the Constitution and Bylaws” that the opinion is justified, or, if that
cannot be done, to modify the opinion.
Opinion: The Commission notes that in its response to question
#3 of Opinion 02-2309 it repeated the words of the question to
which it was responding when it used the words “disrupt, hamper,
or harass.” It was not the intent of the Commission to disparage the
questioner or to discourage proper use of the dispute resolution process. In fact, in the same response to question #3 the Commission

251

acknowledges that there may be occasions when the use of Chapter
VIII of the Bylaws is appropriate.
The Commission has never opined that one brother should be
denied the right or responsibility to admonish another brother over
matters of the soul. However, when it comes to ecclesiastical supervision by the Synod, such supervision is to be provided by those whom
the Synod has given that responsibility in its Constitution and Bylaws.
Adopted Aug. 15–16, 2003
Reconsideration of Opinions re Ecclesiastical Supervision
(03-2338, 03-2338A, 03-2338C)
In a letter received February 27, 2003, a pastor of the Synod
encouraged the Commission to reconsider its decision regarding
“Ecclesiastical Supervision.” The stated reason for encouraging the
reconsideration was that for him the decision leaves the impression
that no one can be held responsible for his actions when he has received prior permission from his ecclesiastical supervisor, that everyone must give an account of his actions before the throne of God and
that no one can claim as an excuse that an ecclesiastical supervisor
condoned his action. He further asked these questions: “Should not
the Scriptures supersede any interpretation of the Bylaws? Is a decision of the CCM valid when it contradicts the Word of God? Can the
church allow them (ecclesiastical supervisors) to be considered above
accountability? Can those who follow approval by their ecclesiastical
supervisor claim this same immunity from challenge to their action?”
Secondly, in a letter received March 1, 2003, a pastor of the Synod
encouraged the Commission to reconsider its January 20–21, 2003,
decisions regarding “Consequences of Actions Taken Upon Approval
of Ecclesiastical Supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320) and all others in
any way pertaining to ecclesiastical supervisors. He stated: “In some
cases, I fear ecclesiastical supervision may even exceed the boundaries of the Holy Scriptures.”
Thirdly, in a letter received April 7, 2003, a voters assembly of
a member congregation of the Synod offered “An Appeal to the
[Commission] on Constitutional Matters of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod to Declare Invalid Opinions 02-2296; 02-2320; and
02-2309,” expressing concern that these opinions leave the supervised member or an officer of the Synod free from responsibility or
accountability and thereby change the public nature of the Synod.
The congregation stated, “In this way the Synod, then, can hold no
individual under such supervision accountable.”
And finally, input that came as a result of the Commission’s invitation expressed: “One effect of the CCM opinion is to preclude the
Synod from expelling one of its members that engages in offensive
conduct (also referred to in the same communication as ‘unacceptable
conduct’ and ‘scandalous conduct’) … if that member acted with the
advice or counsel of the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor,” and
also, “CCM Opinion 02-2309 will certainly be used as a defense to
members of Synod who may be charged with scandalous behavior.”
Although the above letters were received by the Commission in
March and April, 2003, as indicated, and a draft response was considered at the Commission’s June 23, 2003, meeting, publication
of a response was delayed because of the Commission’s invitation
to the Board of Directors to provide “information, if any, related
to the issues that have been raised” (CCM Minutes, June 23, 2003,
agenda item #161). That information was provided at the Commission’s meeting August 15–16, 2003, as reflected in those minutes
(Agenda item #180). Having considered the questions, the communications, and the additional input, the Commission on October 30,
2003, drafted its response to the requests for reconsideration and the
matters presented, and now issues it on this date, December 13, 2003,
upon a scheduled conference call.
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 251

4/15/10 2:40 PM