LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 316

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

316

such resolutions are of a doctrinal nature, dissent is to be expressed
first within the fellowship of peers, then brought to the attention of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations before finding
expression as an overture to the convention calling for revision or
recision. While the conscience of the dissenter shall be respected,
the consciences of others, as well as the collective will of the Synod,
shall also be respected.

In answer to your question, then, Bylaw 2.39 in its entirety does not
impart different status to the rules and regulations of the Synod over the
resolutions of the Synod. All are to be upheld by all members of the
Synod. Bylaw 2.39 b does, as you state, place into the hands of the con-
gregation the right to judge the applicability of a resolution to its local
condition. It also cautions a congregation to “not act arbitrarily, but in
accordance with the principles of Christian love and charity.”

3.1f an action to remove a member from the Synod is brought
against a member for reasons other than those defined under Art.
XIIL, should the action be recognized by the Synod? If so, why? If
not, then to whom would the member petition to have this illegal
action stopped?

If an action to remove a member from the Synod were to be brought
against a member for reasons other than those defined under Art. XIII,
such action should not be recognized. As noted above, expulsion from
the Synod must be on the basis of causes given in Art. XIII 1, that is,
acting “contrary to the confession laid down in Article II and to the con-
ditions of membership laid down in Article VI" or persisting in “an of-
fensive conduct.” Note again, however (as in question [ above), that
Bylaw 2.21 provides some latitude in determining offensive conduct.
Art. XII 8 speaks, for example, of “having given offense by an ungodly
life.”

If an action is wrongfully taken against a member for reasons other
than those defined under Art. XIII, the member has the recourse pro-
vided by Bylaw 2.27 ¢ 2 ¢. Upon receipt of written notification of sus-
pended status under Bylaw 2.25, “the member has 15 days from the date
of receipt of the statement of the case to advise the Secretary of the
Synod that there is a desire to have the matter heard and resolved.”

4. Can a member be removed from the Synod under Bylaw 2.27
without the due process defined under section 2 c [ and 2 a? In
other words, must the officer of the District prepare a written
stateinent as stated under section 2, paragraph c | and must the
officer of the District provide that written statement to the sus-
pended member as stated under section 2, paragraph c 2 a?

The answer to this question is “no.” A member cannot be removed
trom the Synod without due process. Bylaw 2.27 c | and 2 requires that
“the District President ... shall”

|. prepare a written statement of the matter in dispute which sets
forth the alleged facts and states that he is requesting expulsion of
the member from the Synod in accord with Article XIII of the Con-
stitution.

2. provide the member with
a. a copy of the written statement of the case;

b. a written notification of the member's suspended status under
Bylaw 2.25;

c. written notification that the member has 15 days from the date
of receipt of the statement of the case to advise the Secretary of the
Synod ...

The answer to the second part of your question is therefore “yes.”
Due process must be followed and a written statement must be prepared
and provided.

5. If the officer of the District fails to perform his duty as defined in
Bylaw 2.27, section 2, therefore offering no proof or substance
to his charge, or reason for suspension, how can the illegally sus-
pended member end this action against himself without the
“guilty until proven innocent” approach of the Synodical Dispute
Resolution?

As noted above, the suspended member has the recourse provided
by Bylaw 2.27 ¢ through f, which incorporates “the provisions of Chap-
ter VIII of these Bylaws.”

6. Can an officer of the Synod use threats or coercion to force a
member of the Synod to act in a manner that is contrary to the
doctrine of the LCMS as defined under Art. If? If the member
holds fast to the doctrine of the LCMS as defined under Art. II
and is not in violation of Art. XIII, can he be suspended? If so,
use the doctrine as defined under Art. Il and the Constitution and
Bylaws of the LCMS to defend your position.

2001 Convention Workbook

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

Assuming that by “officer of the Synod” you are referring to a
District President, the obvious answer to your question is, of course,
“no.” On the contrary, it is the business of the District President, ac-
cording to Art. XII 8 “to suspend from membership ordained and
commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to false doctrine or
for having given offense by an ungodly life, in accordance with such
procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod.”

The District President. according to Bylaw 4.73, shall accord-
ingly “supervise the doctrine. the life, and the official administra-
tion on the part of the ordained or commissioned ministers who are
members through his District or are subject to his ecclesiastical su-
pervision, and shall inquire into the prevailing spiritual conditions of
the congregations of his District. Bylaw 4.75 also provides that “the
District President, even without formal request therefor, may
through the proper channels arrange for an official visit or investi-
gation when a controversy arises in a congregation or between two
or more congregations of the District, or when there is evidence of a
continuing unresolved problem in doctrine or practice.”

Such measures are not to be considered coercive. At the same
time they are never to be used to force a member of the Synod to
act in a manner that is contrary to the doctrine of the LCMS.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Questions regarding Proper Suspension
and Dispute Resolution Panel Process (98-2130)

A letter was received on October 23, 1998, from the Secretary
of a Dispute Resolution Panel regarding the case before their panel.
After recalling a time line of events of the case, the panel asks the
tollowing questions.

1. Assuming that the above facts (an outline precedes this question)
are true, do the actions of the District Secretary and the District
President, including his letter of October 7, 1998, provide ade-
quate due process and notice to the pastor of the grounds for his
suspension in accordance with the Synod’s Bylaws?

The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.27 pertains to this question and
is clear in its requirements. Suspension under this Bylaw does not in-
clude involvement by the District Secretary, as would be the case had
this Dispute Resolution Panel originated out of Bylaw 8.07. In this case
the panel has been formed as a result of Bylaw 2.27 d, upon request of
the member of the Synod who has been suspended. Therefore any prior
actions of the District Secretary are pertinent to this case only insofar as
they may have been included in the District President's investigation
according to Bylaw 2.27 a through c.

The District President’s actions are most pertinent since he has con-
cluded that the facts of this case “form a basis for expulsion of the mem-
ber under Article XII of the Constitution” (Bylaw 2.27 ¢). It will be
for the Dispute Resolution Panel, not the Commission on Constitutional
Matters, to decide whether his conclusion is correct and whether proper
procedure has been followed, to include the question whether existing
letters are sufficient for adequate due process. Essential to proper pro-
cedure are the specific requirements of the District President, who
“shall” according to Bylaw 2.27 c | and 2

1. prepare a written statement of the matter in dispute which sets
forth the alleged facts and states that he is requesting expulsion of
the member from the Synod in accord with Article XHI of the Con-
stitution.

2. provide the member with

a. a copy of the written statement of the case:

b. a written notification of the member's suspended status under
Bylaw 2.25;

¢. written notification that the member has ]5 days from the date
of receipt of the statement of the case to advise the Secretary of the

Synod that there is a desire to have the matter heard and resolved.
2. Assuming that the District Secretary properly assigned a recon-
ciler to attempt reconciliation between the excommunicated
members and the pastor, does the pastor’s refusal to participate
in the reconciliation process constitute adequate grounds to au-
thorize the District President to suspend him for failure to comply
with the Synod’s Bylaws or does congregational autonomy per-

mit him to refuse participation in the reconciliation process?

Bylaw 2.27 2 b clearly states that “facts [must] form a basis for ex-
pulsion of the member under Article XIII of the Constitution” and reit-
erates (paragraph c 1) the significance of Article XIII of the Constitution