LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 362

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

362 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

3. The President has and always shall have the power to advise, ad-
monish, and reprove. He shall conscientiously use all means at his com-
mand to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the
Districts of the Synod.

Article XII of the Constitution is entitled, “Districts of the
Synod and Their Regulation.” Paragraph 7 therefore states:

7. The District Presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise su-
pervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the or-
dained and commissioned ministers of their District....

The above quoted paragraphs of Articles XI and XII speak for
themselves. As the Commission stated in Opinion 02-2309, the
Synod has assigned to the President of the Synod “the formal or
official constitutional responsibility to admonish or reprove mem-
bers of the Synod.” Likewise, the Synod has assigned to a District
President the “supervision over the doctrine, life, and administra-
tion of office of the ordained and commissioned ministers in their
District.”

Therefore, the Constitution provides that ecclesiastical supervi-
sion by the Synod is to be performed by the President of the Synod
and District Presidents. There is no provision in the Constitution
that such ecclesiastical supervision by the Synod is to be performed
by any other party. Does this prohibit any other individua] mem-
ber of the Synod from privately admonishing an erring brother?
Certainly not. However, it is the constitutionally mandated duty of
the President and District Presidents, and only the President and
District Presidents, to perform ecclesiastical supervision in the
name of the Synod, as detailed in the Constitution and Bylaws.

Bylaw 2.27 establishes the procedure for commencing an ac-
tion to terminate congregational or individual membership. Such
termination requires that the member has, after futile admonition,
acted contrary to the confession laid down in Article II of the Con-
stitution and the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI,
or persisted in an offensive conduct. (It is to be remembered that
termination of membership ultimately lies with a Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel or, if appealed, a Review Panel.) Ecclesiastical supervi-
sion and termination of membership are two different actions. A
written complaint submitted under the provisions of Bylaw 2.27 is
not ecclesiastical supervision.

Adopted June 23, 2003

Immediate Termination of Dispute Resolution Process
(03-2334)

A pastor of the Synod, after corresponding with the Secretary
of the Synod, requested that his questions be forwarded to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, also adding an additional
question. He questions the necessity for the dispute resolution
process of the Synod to continue if and when an opinion of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters appears to decide the case.

Question 1: If the recent CCM rulings (more properly, binding
opinions) say that charges cannot be brought if/when [a] person has
checked with [his/her] supervisor and [the] supervisor had given
permission and “go ahead” based on his interpretation of a synod-
ical document and/or resolution, how can the effect of charges
which have been ruled “not allowed because they are invalid” (my
summary) and the process triggered by the charges continue?

Opinion: It is the responsibility of the investigating officer and
subsequent panels to decide whether allegations brought against a
member of the Synod are valid, taking into consideration all perti-
nent evidence as well as opinions requested from the Commission
on Theology and Church Relations and binding opinions requested
from the Commission on Constitutional Matters. In the case of
CCM opinions, it remains for the investigating officer and/or
panel(s) to become informed of all prior CCM opinions and to de-
termine their applicability and consequences. Until such decisions
are finally made and all opportunities for appeal have been ex-
hausted, the dispute resolution process continues.

Question 2: On the basis of what logic or specific constitu-
tion/bylaw provision is the CCM decision (binding opinion) not
implemented and declared effective?

2004 Convention Workbook

Opinion: All CCM opinions are binding on the question decided
unless and until they are overruled by a convention of the Synod
(Bylaw 3.905 d). All CCM opinions are therefore also binding on
panels in the dispute resolution process, particularly when the ques-
tion being decided originates from a panel (Bylaw 8.21 i). If a
panel does not implement a CCM opinion, either party to the dis-
pute or the President of the Synod, if a question of doctrine or prac-
tice is involved, has the right to ask for a decision from an Appeal
Panel regarding a reconsideration of the earlier panel’s decision
(Bylaw 8.09 d).

Question 3: Is there a specific constitution/bylaw provision
which demands that the process which is in operation must be car-
ried out, even when the binding ruling has been made that the
charges are invalid?

Opinion: In an earlier opinion (01-2253), the CCM responded to
a question regarding withdrawal from a dispute resolution process
after a hearing had been requested:

Once the process has been initiated, the Synod and its members
are bound to follow the procedure that has been provided....Once
the choice is made to continue the process by requesting a hearing
before a panel, the Synod is duty-bound to finish its process.

This opinion was provided on the basis of Bylaw 8.01, which
reads: “No person, entity or agency to whom or to which the pro-
visions of this chapter are applicable because such person, entity
or agency is a member of the Synod may render the provisions of
this chapter inapplicable by terminating that membership.” While
there is no specific constitution or bylaw provision that specifically
requires that a dispute resolution process that is underway must be
carried out in its entirety, there also is no constitution or bylaw pro-
vision, including Chapter VIII of the Bylaws (Synodical Dispute
Resolution), that provides for early termination of a dispute resolu-
tion process.

Question 4: Is there any provision in [the] constitution/bylaw[s]
which precludes the President of the Synod (or the Secretary of the
Synod, or the current acting President of the Atlantic District, or
some other person elected to office) from [making a] declaration
to implement CCM binding opinion immediately.

Opinion: While the officers of the Synod are responsible to the
extent of their various responsibilities for seeing to it that the Con-
stitution, Bylaws, and resolutions, including CCM opinions, are
carried out, Article XI A 1 of the Constitution provides that “the
officers of the Synod must assume only such rights as have been
expressly conferred upon them by the Synod.” None of the officers
mentioned have been expressly given the right to intervene in the
dispute resolution process of the Synod. In its prior Opinion 02-
2304 the CCM opined that not even a convention of the Synod can
take any action relative to a final decision of a matter in dispute.
In matters pertaining to the dispute resolution process, it is the busi-
ness of investigating officers and panels, not officers and not even
conventions, to become informed of and to make application of all
pertinent CCM rulings in given cases.

Question 5: This opinion [01-2253], which predated the more
recent CCM rulings which say that if a person has sought autho-
rization/permission or approval from his supervisor and has re-
ceived it based on the supervisor’s interpretation then the charges
are obviously invalid, would make sense in situations where such
actions did not take place. However, surely it would be recognized
that if the charges are determined invalid, the process would not
continue, because to do that would continue to cause harm to the
individual as well as to the Synod. Thus my request for the CCM to
review both the more recent rulings and the one you cite above to
determine if the earlier one still makes sense or whether it should
be set aside in circumstances such as the present one and after the
newer rulings.

Opinion: Upon your request, the Commission has reviewed the
Tulings in question and concludes that there is no reason to set aside
Opinion 01-2253, for reasons included in the opinions provided to
questions 1-4.

Adopted April 29, 2003