LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 302

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

302 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Council of Presidents in declining reinstatement, what is the au-
thority of the panel and how far-reaching is it?

2. Should one of the parties be a participant in the group dealing
with a resolution, in this case the Council of Presidents?

3. To what extent does the panel have the authority to provide syn-
odical or District records when requested by either party in a
dispute?

The commission decided to respond as follows:

In response to your first question, the commission would initially
call attention to the fact that there is no inherent right to membership in
the Synod (Bylaw 2.31). Further, it is a general principle that a specific
statute or directive is controlling over one that is more general. Applied
to the situation cited, Bylaw 2.31 regarding reinstatement is specific and
binding and is to be carried out by the Council of Presidents. Stated oth-
erwise, a Dispute Resolution Panel has the right and duty to make a
binding decision which includes a recommendation. Its authority is de-
fined in chapter VIII and this authority may not be exceeded. The deci-
sion to recommend cannot bind the Council of Presidents and require it
to adopt the recommendation.

In response to the second question, it is the opinion of the commis-
sion that, although the Bylaw does not require it, it would be proper for
a District President directly involved in the question of reinstatement
of a member whom he has removed to abstain from voting on the mat-
ter. It is, however, essential that the District President participate in the
presentation of the request for reinstatement so that the members of the
Council of Presidents are informed when casting their votes and do not
do so blindly. Basic information regarding circumstances is essential
for proper consideration by the council.

In response to your third question, the commission concludes that
the Dispute Resolution Panel has no authority to provide synodical or
District documents when requested by either party in a dispute. Re-
quests for such documents must be made to the District or synodical
entity which has custody of such records and is responsible for the
proper maintenance and handling of them.

Adopted Jan. 31, 1996

Dispute Resolution Procedure

The following question was posed for consideration by the
Commission on Constitutional Matters:

If a dispute arises between members of Synod who are separated by
a long distance over false doctrine/practice being publicly advocated by
one of the members. with the result that an official complaint is lodged
with that member's District president, can compliance with the require-
ments of Matt. 18:15-16 as mandated by Synod’s Bylaws be accom-
plished through telephone and letter correspondence, or must there be a
“face to face” meeting between the members involved in the dispute?

As an example, the pastor requesting an opinion had cited a pos-
sible dispute between persons living in areas separated by a wide
distance.

After discussing the matter at some length, the commission de-
cided to respond as follows:

Responding to your question, the commission has concluded that
the Bylaws are not explicit in responding to the question posed and,
therefore. is unable to provide a definite answer. Bylaw 8.05 is, in the
opinion of the commission, intended to embody a principle of Scrip-
ture. Official interpretation of that Scripture is beyond the purview of
the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The commission would
therefore respectfully suggest that the question would better be referred
to the Commission on Theology and Church Relations and would en-
courage you to follow that course of action.

Adopted Jan. 31, 1996

Conflict of Interest

The commission had received a request from a pastor in a Dis-
trict regarding the possibility of conflict of interest relating to var-
ious positions held by the District President and by members of the
Board of Directors. The commission reviewed each of the ques-
tions which had been asked and then decided to respond as follows:

First. with respect to the question of whether the District President
may hold the presidency and serve as chairman of the District Board of

Directors, the Commission would direct your attention to Bylaw 3.75

b. which states:

“An office shall be regarded as elective only if it is an office
filled through election by a national or a District convention, even
though a vacancy in such an office may be filled by appointment.”

Election to the chairmanship of a District Board of Directors is not
to be considered an elective position unless such election would be by
the District convention. This does not appear to be the case. Further-
more, the statement in the District Bylaws merely states functions which
are to be carried out by the District President or District Secretary.

In regard to your other concerns, the commission concludes that
while it might be wise to do so, the Bylaws do not require communica-
tion with congregations prior to action being taken by the Board of Di-
rectors. Under the circumstances described, congregations may, since
an action has been taken and has now been communicated, forward pro-
posals and recommendations to the Board of Directors. Among these
might be a recommendation to the Board of Directors to rescind its ac-
tion.

The fact that members of the executive council are also voting
members of the Board of Directors need not be a conflict of interest.
Individual members or groups of members of a board often serve in an
advisory capacity to the other members to assist them in arriving at de-
cisions. It should further be noted that the Board of Directors consists of
twenty (20) voting members. At least 14 of these are not members of
the executive council. (The District has four Vice-Presidents. These plus
the President and Secretary comprise only six members of the Board of
Directors.)

In view of these facts, there would not seem to be a “major conflict
of interest” when some of the members of the executive council which
serves as “an advisory group to the Board of Directors” also are voting
members of the District Board of Directors.

Adopted March 28, 1996

Campus Ministry—Pastoral Vote

A letter had been received from the pastor serving a university
Lutheran church in which he asked the commission to consider
once again the right of the campus church to have a pastoral vote at
District conventions and Circuit Forums. The question had been
previously been addressed by the commission in 1988 and 1991.
As it reviewed the request, it became apparent that the issue of facts
was involved and that it would be impossible for the commission to
provide a definitive answer without having knowledge of the facts.
Consequently, the commission decided to respond to the pastor by
saying

It is the unanimous opinion of the commission that the position
stated in 1988 and supported in 1991 is still valid. As you know. this
indicated that the question can only be resolved on the basis of who has
called you to serve as the campus pastor at University Lutheran Chapel.
Is it the congregation in consultation with the District? Is it the District
in consultation with the congregation, with the District assigning you
to this ministry? What is meant by a “Call extended jointly by the Con-
gregation and by the District"? Which of the two entities would be re-
sponsible for the continuation of your ministry at University Lutheran
Chapel?

The commission believes that in order to deal with your concern it is
necessary for questions such as those posed above to be answered. The
members believe that the issue of facts is involved and that they are not
in a position to provide any other opinion than that already given until
they are known. If you can provide the commission with more complete
information regarding the origin of your call, the entity to which you
are responsible and any other pertinent details. the commission will give
further consideration to your request.

Adopted March 28, 1996

Status Call—Ecclesiastical Supervision

The President of a District had received notice of a call ex-
tended to a pastor on candidate status in another District to carry
out a weekly radio ministry in that District while residing there and
to do other ministry and serve as missionary-at-large in that area.
The call had been extended by a congregation of the other District.
The District President identified the following questions which he
felt needed answering and which he placed before the commission
for consideration. These were as follows:

1. In accord with the responsibilities of a District President (1992
Handbook, Constitution Art. XII 7, VI, Bylaw 4.71 a, 4.73) can,
and should I, as President of a District, authorize the installa-