LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 353

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 353

tion could form the basis for disciplinary action as provided in Ar-
ticle XII.

Where members of Synod have doctrinal disagreements and
disputes, mechanisms are in place to allow for dialogue and dis-
cussion and the adoption of doctrinal positions (Bylaws 1.09 and
2.39). Such disagreements or disputes, however, are not intended to
lead to the bringing of charges under Bylaw 2.27 or the implemen-
tation of dispute resolution process under Chapter VIII of the By-
laws.

Question 2: May an ordained or commissioned minister or a
member congregation who has acted in a matter after receiving the
advice and authorization of his/her District President be charged
under bylaw 2.27 for such act, which could result in removal from
the roster of the Synod?

Opinion: The answer to this question, as already stated in the
response to question 1, is “no.” The District President has ecclesi-
astical supervision of the ordained and commissioned ministers and
member congregations within his District as set forth in Article XII
7 and Bylaws 4.71, 4.73 and 4.75. When an ordained or commis-
sioned minister or member congregation has acted in a manner that
is consistent with the counsel of the District President, the Synod is
precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of
its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows
the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated
by the Synod.

Question 3: May any person, member or board of the Synod,
by invoking Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII of the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod, be allowed to disrupt, hamper or harass the
synodical President who is responsible to the Synod (Art. XI A) in
carrying out his duties and responsibilities for ecclesiastical super-
vision as stated in synodical Constitution Article XI B 1-4 and Ar-
ticle III 8, including advising a District President concerning a doc-
trinal position of the Synod and/or a question of administrative
action, thus assuming only the rights and duties conferred on him
by the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions.

Qpinion: The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.27 cannot be in-
voked in the case of the President of the Synod (see CCM Opinion
01-2240). Whereas there may be occasions when the use of Chap-
ter VIII of the Bylaws may be appropriate (see Opinion 03-2325),
implementation of the dispute resolution process should never be
intended or allowed to disrupt, hamper, or harass the President as
he carries out the duties and responsibilities of his office, including
those of ecclesiastical supervision. It is never appropriate to assume
rights and duties that have been conferred upon another by the Con-
stitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod.

Question 4: If the answer to the previous question is “yes,” then
under what circumstances can a District President or synodical
President carry out their duties without being harassed and ham-
pered by the invoking of Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII.

Opinion: In the case of the President of the Synod, see the an-
swer to question 3 above. In the case of charges brought against a
District President, if he has been carrying out his responsibilities
and the charges clearly are not supportable, the investigating officer
may act quickly to dismiss the matter. Should members of the
Synod abuse the Bylaws by bringing clearly unsupportable charges
or complaints, such conduct may itself give offense and should be
dealt with accordingly.

Question 5: May any person, member, or board of the Synod,
after invoking Bylaw 2.27 and receiving a perceived “unfavorable”
result, then invoke Chapter VIII against a District President and/or
the synodical President although both were providing ecclesiastical
supervision and seeing to it that the doctrinal position and the res-
olutions of the Synod were being carried out before Bylaw 2.27
was invoked in the first place.

Opinion: If an individual makes an allegation under Bylaw 2.27
against a member of the Synod, that allegation is given to the mem-
ber’s ecclesiastical supervisor, either the President of the Synod or
the appropriate District President. If the ecclesiastical supervisor
declines to take any action, the party that has made the allegation
may appeal that decision to the Praesidium of the Synod. Should
the Praesidium also decline to take any action on the allegation, in

the words of Bylaw 2.27 b, that “shall terminate the matter.” In
other words, the matter is dead and there is no way that the com-
plainant can invoke any of the provisions of Chapter VIII.

Question 6: If the synodical President or District President are
carrying out ecclesiastical supervision according to the Constitu-
tion and Article XI and Article III 8 or Article XII and seeing to it
that the resolutions of the Synod are being carried out (honored and
upheld), under what constitutional provision may the President be
recused from any subsequent involvement.

Opinion: There is no such constitutional provision.

Question 7: When the Synod has clearly stated its position or
when an ecclesiastical supervisor has expressed his judgment con-
cerning an issue based on a resolution adopted by the Synod, does
a dissenter have the right to invoke Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII
rather than 2.39 c, the stated procedure for dissent referred to in
Bylaw 1.09 d? ,

Opinion: Bylaw 2.27 is not the method provided by the Bylaws
to resolve disputes as to what the doctrines of the church should
be. Rather, it provides procedures for expulsion from the Synod ac-
cording to Article XIII of the Constitution. Where there is dis-
agreement by the complainant about the doctrines of the church,
the action is one of a dissenter, which is governed by the provisions
of Bylaw 2.39 c.

Question 8: Is it a conflict of interest when a District President
and/or synodical President are carrying out their duties of ecclesi-
astical supervision and seeing to it that the resolutions of the Synod
are being carried out? If the answer is “yes” in what sense is it a
“conflict of interest” and how is conflict of interest then defined.

Opinion: The answer to the first part of this question is “no.”
An ecclesiastical supervisor carrying out his responsibilities of ec-
clesiastical supervision is not creating a conflict of interest with re-
spect to his duties and responsibilities imposed by the Constitution
or Bylaws.

A Bylaw 2.27 action against a District President falls within the
provisions of Bylaw 2.27 g, and the synodical President becomes
the investigating officer. Disqualification of the President of the
Synod, as with the District President, occurs where he is a party to
the matter in dispute, has a conflict of interest, or is otherwise un-
able to act. The fact that the investigating officer, whether a syn-
odical or District President, has been involved in performing his
ecclesiastical responsibilities in supervising the accused party is in
and of itself not a basis for disqualification. In fact, the Constitution
of the Synod presupposes that since or when there is prior supervi-
sion, advice, or futile admonition regarding the activity giving rise
to a charge, the synodically designated ecclesiastical supervisor
would have been involved in that advice or admonition. Carrying
out such responsibility does not make the ecclesiastical supervisor
a party to the matter in dispute nor give rise to a conflict of interest.
Rather, the duty to investigate flows from and is a natural out-
growth of the District or synodical President’s ecclesiastical super-
visory responsibility.

Question 9: Under what constitutional provision, if any, may
any person or group, any board or commission, or any other entity
assume de jure or de facto the responsibility of ecclesiastical su-
pervision in the Synod that has been given alone to the synodical
President or the District President in his respective District. In other
words, may any entity that does not have the ecclesiastical super-
vision, which is the sole responsibility of the synodical President or
a District President, publicly reprove or admonish another entity? If
the answer is “yes” how may the Synod avoid havoc, disorder and
confusion?

Opinion: There is no constitutional provision that allows any
person, group, board, commission or other entity to assume the re-
sponsibility of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been
given to the President of the Synod under Article XI B or the Dis-
trict President under Article XII 7. This includes the formal or of-
ficial constitutional responsibility to admonish or reprove members
of the Synod. No one is to interfere in the work of another.

Adopted Jan. 20-21, 2003

2004 Convention Workbook