LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 270

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

270

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Opinion: Because a pastor on candidate status who serves a vacancy does not thereby hold one of the positions of service listed
under Bylaw 2.11.1, such vacancy service, should he be placed
on restricted status by his district president, is not to be included
under the general exception granted for “position[s] of service” by
Bylaw 2.13.2.2 (a). His district president may approve his continued performance of such “functions of ministry,” but without such
approval he is ineligible to continue to serve as a vacancy pastor.
Adopted Aug. 18, 2008
Face-to-Face Meeting Requirement
(08-2527; 08-2529; 08-2529A)
In letters dated July 31, August 20, and September 9, 2008, a pastor of the Synod asked a series of questions related to the initiation
and processing of an action which could result in the expulsion of a
member from the Synod. Pursuant to the provision of Bylaw 3.9.2.2
(b), the commission advised the questioner’s ecclesiastical supervisor
of the submission of the questions and provided opportunity to submit
information believed to be important for the commission to know in
providing its response. This input clarified that the questions were
purely hypothetical, that no action under Bylaw section 2.14 had been
initiated, and that the ecclesiastical supervisor, in an attempt to avoid
the need to initiate such action, had requested that the member come
to his office to discuss an issue of concern regarding information that
was being published by the member concerning the ecclesiastical
supervisor. The commission responded to the questions that were
submitted as follows.
Question 1: Does a privately or publicly stated personal opinion
concerning the actions of a district president constitute
a basis for the initiation of an action which may result
in the expulsion of a member from the Synod?
Opinion: The grounds for expulsion from the Synod under Article
XIII of the Constitution are provided by paragraph 1 of the article:
1. Members who act contrary to the confession laid
down in Article II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI or persist in an offensive
conduct, shall, after previous futile admonition, be
expelled from the Synod.
A personal opinion concerning the actions of a district president,
whether privately or publicly stated, may only form the basis of the
initiation of an action for a removal from membership if it meets
one of the grounds as stated in Article XIII, paragraph 1.
Question 2: In accord with Bylaw 2.14.2 (e), does a failure on the
part of a district president (the accuser) to hold a faceto-face meeting with an accused member of the Synod
within the specified 30 day limit result in the dismissal
of the complaint if the accused has repeatedly affirmed
his desire to meet with the district president regarding
a matter in a manner described in Matthew 18:15?
Opinion: Bylaw 2.14.2 (e) defines a face-to-face meeting as follows:
(e) Face-to-face: A face-to-face meeting in person between the accuser and the accused in the manner described in Matthew 18:15. Email, regular mail, fax, or telephone call (or any combination thereof)
does not satisfy this requirement. (Note: Failure to conduct a face-toface meeting within 30 days or within such extension as may be established by the involved ecclesiastical supervisors shall result in dismissal
if the fault lies with the accuser or movement to the next stage if the fault
lies with the accused.)

As indicated in the bylaw, failure to conduct a face-to-face meeting within 30 days, if the accuser is responsible for the failure, results in dismissal unless the 30-day period has been extended by the

involved ecclesiastical supervisor(s). Since no Bylaw section 2.14
action has been initiated in the questioner’s case, this question is, of
course, hypothetical at present.
Question 3: If a district president is the accuser in a matter which
may result in the expulsion of a member of the Synod,
and if the district president is requesting a face-to-face
meeting in a manner not described in Matthew 18:15,
but demands that the brother whom he believes has
wronged him appear in the district president’s office
without any assurance the district president will meet
just between the two of them as brothers, and if the
accused desires to challenge this arrangement as an
abridgement of the manner described in Matthew 18:15
in order to fulfill Bylaw 2.14.2 (e) and Bylaw 2.14.3 (c),
and also referenced in Bylaws 2.14.7.1 and 2.14.7.6, in
what way can the accused challenge the accusing district
president and ask for clarification that Matthew 18:15
be carried out in the manner actually described in that
passage (that is, that the brother who believes himself
to be wronged goes to the brother whom he believes
has wronged him and that such a meeting would only
be between the two of them)?
Opinion: Under Bylaw 2.14.4, the district president may commence
an action which could lead to the expulsion of a member, either by
becoming aware of such information by his own personal knowledge or when a complaint has been initiated by a member congregation or individual member of the Synod pursuant to Bylaw
2.14.3. In the latter circumstance, where the complaint is brought
by a member congregation or individual member of the Synod, the
district president is required to assure that the complaining member follows the requirements of Bylaw 2.14.3, including assuring,
under Bylaw 2.14.3 (c), that the accuser has met face-to-face with
the accused in the manner described in Matthew 18:15. Where the
district president initiates the action based on his own personal
knowledge and is both accuser and district president, he must as
district president assure that he as accuser has complied with Bylaw
2.14.2 (e) and that a face-to-face meeting has occurred.
The face-to-face meeting required by Bylaw 2.14.2 (e) is to occur
within 30 days or within such extension as may be established by
the involved ecclesiastical supervisors. Failure to conduct the faceto-face meeting within that 30-day period, or such period as may be
extended by the involved ecclesiastical supervisor(s), would result in
dismissal of the complaint.
If the matter is not yet a formal Bylaw section 2.14 action, the
ecclesiastical supervisor is, in his judgment, free to request such faceto-face or other meetings as he deems appropriate within the scope
of his ecclesiastical supervision.
Question 4: If such a matter which may result in the expulsion of
a member of the Synod must comply with the bylaw
requirement that first a face-to-face meeting in person
between the accuser and the accused must take place in
the manner described in Matthew 18:15 (Bylaw 2.14.2
[e]), and that “…the district president shall ensure that
the accuser has met face-to-face with the accused in
the manner described in Matthew 18:15” (Bylaw
2.14.3 [c]), and it is also necessary that the chairman
of the Council of Presidents agree that there “…was
compliance with the guidelines provided in Matthew
18:15–16…” (Bylaw 2.14.7.1), then the manner
described in Matthew 18:15 must be clearly defined and
understood in order for an accusation to go forward. I
am seeking the assurance provided by our Constitution

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 270

4/15/10 2:40 PM