LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 340

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

340 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

pulsion, Bylaw 2.27 d then requires the investigating officer to for-
ward to the Secretary of the Synod the statement of the matter in
dispute and a memorandum describing compliance with Matthew
18. Under the dispute resolution process, a Dispute Resolution
Panel is then formed under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the
Bylaws, and the panel eventually issues a decision. Under Bylaw
8.09 c 4 d, that decision is then publicized as deemed appropriate
by the District or synodical President.

When a decision is issued by the panel, any party to the dispute,
or the President of the Synod (in recognition of the President’s
power and responsibility under Article XI B 1-3), if a question of
doctrine or practice is involved, may request reconsideration, and
the President may request an opinion of the CCM or CTCR.

Assuming that all persons involved have scrupulously followed
the provisions of Bylaw 8.21 e and the CCM’s prior opinions, the
President may learn of the basis of the action of the investigating
officer only after completion of the work of the Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel, when he is expressly required to be apprized. If the in-
vestigating officer has failed to follow his responsibilities under
Bylaw 2.27 c, or erred in his interpretation of the doctrines of the
church, the Constitution, Bylaws and resolutions of the Synod, the
appeal process is designed to discover and correct such failures or
errors, and the President’s need to call up the action of the investi-
gating officer for review or the need to report by a pastoral letter
such calling up for review would be moot.

If the investigating officer under Bylaw 2.27 commits a proce-
dural error, primary responsibility for correction of that error is
vested in the Secretary of the Synod, who is to administer the
Synod’s dispute resolution process under Bylaw 3.143 o.

Were the President of the Synod to become aware, before an-
nouncement of a decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel under
8.09 c 4 d, that an investigating officer has misstated a doctrinal
position of the church or acted in violation of the Constitution, By-
laws, or resolutions of the Synod, a President of the Synod has re-
sponsibility to act. Article XI B 1-4 of the Constitution sets forth
his duties. Subsection 1 imposes on him duties regarding the su-
pervision of the doctrine of the church and administration of all of-
ficers of the Synod. Subsection 2 requires that he see to it that all
act in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution and admonish all
who depart from it. Subsection 3 provides that “the President has
and always shall have the power to advise, admonish, and reprove.
He shall conscientiously use all means at his command to promote
and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the Districts of
the Synod.” Subsection 4 requires that the President see to it that
the resolutions of the Synod are carried out.

In fulfilling his duties, the President would normally be ex-
pected to rely on the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws to
correct errors occurring during the dispute resolution process. This
is particularly so in view of the responsibilities given others under
Article XIII, and the bylaws flowing from that article. We previ-
ously recognized in CCM Opinion 02-2251 that the President’s
duty and power “‘to advise, admonish, and reprove is tempered by
the provisions of Article XIII and the bylaws that flow from it.”
Recognizing the procedural protections embodied in the dispute
resolution process, including the initial review by a Dispute Reso-
lution Panel, and subsequent appeal to an Appeal Panel, which may
then form a Review Panel, the President would normally be ex-
pected to choose not to actively intervene until that process has
concluded. Following the initial decision of the Dispute Resolution
Panel, he may also, under Bylaw 8.09 d, where a question of doc-
trine or practice is involved, request at that time either reconsider-
ation, or an opinion of either the CCM or the CTCR.

Under extraordinary circumstances, such as when an issue is of
Synodwide concern and having an immediate and ongoing nega-
tive impact on the Synod, the President may choose to exercise his
discretion in fulfilling his duties under Article XI. The President’s
right and/or responsibility to call up for review an action of an in-
vestigation officer carrying out the responsibilities of Bylaw 2.27 c
flows from his constitutional responsibilities and powers. Similarly,
his right and/or responsibility to report to the Synod via pastoral
letter flows from his constitutional responsibilities and powers
under Article XI.

2004 Convention Workbook

It should be noted that, since the Secretary of the Synod sub-
mitted the question, he has not participated in the discussions lead-
ing to this opinion. Dr. Norman Sincebaugh was hospitalized and
unable to participate in deliberations, and was taken to his eternal
rest while this question was being considered.

Adopted Aug. 20, 2002

Rights and Responsibilities of President of the Synod
Under Bylaw 3.101 (02-2282, B)

Two pastors of the Synod, in separate letters to the Commission
dated July 15, 2002, requested a ruling from the Commission re-
garding the Bylaw 3.101 distinction between the President’s eccle-
siastical and administrative powers and duties as pertaining to his
announced intention to call up for review a decision of the investi-
gating officer in a current dispute case.

Question: May the President of the Synod use Bylaw 3.101 to
justify the review and possible overturning of the decision that was
made by the member of the Praesidium under the provisions of
Bylaw 2.27 ¢?

Opinion: The President’s authority in such circumstances de-
rives from Article XI B of the Constitution, which incorporates
both the ecclesiastical and administrative responsibilities. An issue
can implicate both areas of responsibility. The failure of a review-
ing officer to take into consideration some resolution of the Synod
would be administrative, but a reviewing officer acting based on a
misunderstanding of the doctrines of the church would be consid-
ered ecclesiastical.

Opinion 02-2282 of the Commission addressed this question.
That opinion indicates that the President’s authority is not founded
in the Bylaws but rather in Article XI of Synod’s Constitution.
Under Article XI the President has the authority to advise, admon-
ish and reprove, and if such admonition is not heeded, report such
cases to the Synod. He does not have the authority to overturn the
decision that was made by the member of the Praesidium under the
provisions of Bylaw 2.27 c.

Adopted Oct. 21-22, 2002

Responsibilities of the President and Secretary
in Dispute Resolution Process (02-2283)

A pastor of the Synod in a July 11, 2002 letter, requested re-
sponses from the Commission to a series of questions pertaining to
the Synod’s dispute resolution process and the role of officers of
the Synod in that process.

Question 1: Under the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws and
more specifically Article XI B 4 as well as Bylaw 1.09 b, does the
President of the LCMS at all times and in all circumstances have
the right and responsibility to exercise the duty of ensuring that all
members carry out the resolutions of the Synod?

Opinion: The duties of the President of the Synod as set forth in
Article XI B of the Constitution of the Synod are applicable at all
times during the term of office of the man who occupies the posi-
tion of President of the Synod. Bylaw 1.09 b deals with doctrinal
resolutions and thus comes under the provisions of Article XI B 4,
which provides that “The President shall see to it that the resolu-
tions of the Synod are carried out.” However, the President’s su-
pervisory authority to carry out this directive does not extend over
all members of the Synod but is limited to the officers of the
Synod, all such as are employed by the Synod, the individual Dis-
tricts of the Synod and all District Presidents (Article XI B 1).

Question 2: In the event that another synodical officer is granted
the authority of the synodical President, by whatever means, does
not an officer under those circumstances have the responsibility of
carrying out the resolutions of Synod accepted in convention, and
failing to carry out that responsibility, is not that officer derelict in
his constitutional duties?

Opinion: In the letter that accompanied the request for this opin-
ion, the author indicated that his questions were related to the issues
the Commission addressed in opinion 02-2282. Thus this opinion