LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 313

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 313

The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws are applicable to the
President of the Synod, the Praesidium of the Synod, a District Presi-
dent and every other member of the Synod. The Preamble to Chapter
VIII provides “that the use of the Synod’s conflict resolution procedures
shall be the exclusive and final remedy for those who are in dispute.”
The President of the Synod, the Praesidium of the Synod, or a District
President play no part in such a dispute, It is a Chapter VIII matter and
is to be resolved under the process established in Chapter VIII. Bylaw
8.07 sets forth the procedure to initiate the dispute resolution process,
and the President of the Synod, the Praesidium, or a District President
must advise the complainant in such cases that the matter has been pre-
sented to the wrong party and that the procedure to be followed is pro-
vided in Chapter VIII.

The District President finally also asked several questions re-
lating to Bylaw 2.41 d:

You also posed several questions to the Commission relating to
Bylaw 2.41 d and the District membership and ecclesiastical supervi-
sion of the President of the Synod.

Must the President of the Synod be a member of a District of
the Synod under the provisions of Bylaw 2.41 d? Under the provi-
sions of the same Bylaw, does the President of the Missouri District
have the right (and in certain circumstances, the duty) to apply the
provisions of Bylaws, Chapter II D and E (Bylaws 2.21 through
2.33) to the President of the Synod?

In answering these questions, the Commission first observes that
the President of the Synod is under the ecclesiastical supervision of the
President of the Missouri District under Bylaw 2.41 d, since the synod-
ical President serves the Synod at its headquarters in St. Louis, MO.
Nothing in the Bylaw indicates any intent that the synodical President
(or anyone else) be excepted from this provision. Bylaw 4.73 requires
that the President of the Missouri District supervise the doctrine, life,
and the official administration of those who are subject to his ecclesias-
tical supervision. As part of that supervision, the President of the Mis-
souri District is held to apply the provisions of Bylaws 2.21 through
2.33 when necessary.

The Commission further notes that these provisions do not apply to
all grievances which might be brought against the synodical President.
but only those listed in Bylaws 2.23 a 1-3 and 2.27 a. Furthermore,
given the importance of the responsibilities of the synodical President
and the disruption of the administration of Synod affairs which would
result from the application of these procedures to the indocile President,
itis to be expected that the President of the Missouri District would ex-
ercise the utmost caution, discretion, and good judgment in exercising
his responsibilities under these sections.

Adopted Sept. 30, 1998

The Scope of Authority and Jurisdiction
of Doctrinal Reviewers (98-2126)

A sertes of questions were submitted by the Executive Editor
of The Lutheran Witness regarding the scope of the authority and
jurisdiction of doctrinal reviewers, calling attention to Bylaw 11.03
a~c. He explained that answers to these questions are necessary for
the staff of The Lutheran Witness to carry out its editorial respon-
sibilities.

After discussion the Commission offered the following re-
sponses to each of the questions:

1. In Bylaw 11.07 ¢ do the words “inadequate,” “misleading,” and
“ambiguous” refer only to doctrinal content, or do they refer to
any content in an article?

The matter of doctrinal review is treated in the Bylaws under the
provisions of Chapter XI. Bylaw 11.01 provides that “doctrinal review
is the exercise of the Synod’s responsibility for every doctrinal state-
ment made in its material as defined in Bylaw 11.03." Bylaw 11.03 a
provides that “all official periodicals and journals of the Synod ... shall
be subject to doctrinal review.” Bylaw 11.01 b clarifies that “the prime
concern of doctrinal review is that the doctrine set forth be in accord
with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.”

Acting within the scope of 11.07 a, doctrinal reviewers are required
to “make a careful evaluation of the doctrinal content of all items suh-
mitted.” This provision sets forth a context for 11.07 c, which states that
“the reviewer shall also be concerned that the items submitted to him do
not contain statements that are inadequate, misleading, ambiguous, or
lacking in doctrinal clarity.”

In the event that there is a disagreement between an author or pub-
lisher and the doctrinal reviewer on material that has not yet been pub-
lished, the matter goes before the Commission on Doctrinal Review. Its
duties according to Bylaw |1.11 b 1 are to establish guidelines for the
work of doctrinal reviewers and to concern itself with problem areas in
the procedures of doctrinal review. In a matter where doctrinal review is
challenged after publication, Bylaw 11.15 ¢ stipulates that “the chal-
lenger is obliged to provide specific references of how the published
item is not in agreement with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.”

Bylaw 11.07 b and d establishes the standard for review or appeal,
that the doctrinal content be in accord with the Scriptures, the Confes-
sions, and the resolutions of the Synod. The jurisdiction given to a doc-
trinal reviewer does not extend beyond matters of doctrine. The Com-
mission therefore interprets Bylaw 11.07 ¢ to mean that “inadequate,
misleading, ambiguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity” apply to doc-
trine alone.

The line of demarcation between the authority of doctrinal reviews
and the Board for Communication Services is clearly set forth in Chap-
ter XII of the Bylaws. According to Bylaw 12.01 ¢, “the Board for
Communication Services shall be responsible for the official periodi-
cals [of the Synod].” Bylaw 12.05 states that “matters relating to doc-
trine shall be approved under the prescribed procedure for doctrinal re-
view before publication.” The doctrinal reviewer is therefore precluded
from failing an article or publication on grounds other than doctrine. To
do so would exceed the authority given by the Bylaws and would usurp
powers expressly granted to the Board for Communication Services.

2. Does this Bylaw (11.07) permit a reviewer to “fail” an article—
that is, to prohibit its publication—as “inadequate” and “mis-
leading” if the article is deemed by him to be “inadequate” and
“misleading” in some sense other than a doctrinal sense?

For the reasons stated in the Commission's response to question |. a
reviewer may only fail an article if it is ‘inadequate, misleading, am-
biguous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity” and theretore not in doctrinal
conformity with the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the doc-
trinal resolutions of the Synod.

3. What if an article that includes criticism of a certain committee's
actions is, in the reviewer's opinion, “inadequate” or “mislead-
ing,” for example, in the way it explains the committee's deci-
sion to conduct its business in a certain way? May he on that
basis refuse to permit its publication?

The Bylaws state that the regulation of the official periodicals of the
Synod falls within the jurisdiction of the Board for Communication Ser-
vices. This Board has the responsibility and authority to regulate the
content of these publications in all matters that do not expressly fall
within the purview of doctrinal review. A reviewer may not reject an
article or publication if he merely disagrees with ity content on a non-
doctrinal basis.

Adopted Sept. 30, 1998
Residence of Board Members (98-2127)

A letter was received from a pastor requesting the Commis-
sion’s opinion regarding the membership on the Board of Diree-
tors of the Synod of two persons “from the same District.” More
specifically, “Can a newly elected Board of Directors member re-
main on the Board if they move to a District where an existing
Board of Director’s member already resides? Is one member im-
mediately disqualttted from serving ... whether it’s the newly
elected or the existing member?” References were also made to a
prior case where a Board member was not allowed to serve after
his status changed from lay member to member of the Synod and to
the recent convention of the Synod and its measures taken to pre-
vent two persons from the same District from serving on certain
boards.

The Commission's response ts as follows:

The Commission would clarify that while two current members of
the Board of Directors of the Synod may reside in the same state, the
decisive qualification for board membership on the part of church work-
ers is not place of residence but District membership, as stated in Bylaw
3.189 of the 1995 Hundbook:

The synodical Board of Directors is elected by a convention of

the Synod. The board shall consist of 13 voting members serving a

maximum of two six-year terms: four ordained ministers: one com-

missioned minister; and eight laypersons. No more than one of the

2001 Convention Workbook