LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 294

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

294 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

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 responsibil-
ity of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has
been given alone to the synodical President or the Dis-
trict President in his respective District. In other words,
may any entity that does not have the ecclesiastical su-
pervision, which is the sole responsibility of the synod-
ical 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 per-
son, 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 offi-
cial 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

Consequences of Action Taken Upon Approval
of Ecclesiastical Supervisor (02-2296; 02-2320)

A Dispute Resolution Panel in a letter dated December 20,
2002, forwarded the following question to the Commission from a
party to a dispute. The question is identical to a question submitted
by a Vice-President of a District in an August 16, 2002 letter.

Question: Do the Constitution and/or Bylaws of Synod allow or
contemplate the discipline of any pastor or contemplate
the discipline of any pastor of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod who has taken an action with the full
knowledge and approval of his superior, where the su-
perior’s approval is based upon the superior’s interpreta-
tion of a synodically approved document, where the in-
terpretation is not plainly or knowingly erroneous,
especially where the superior himself has not been for-
mally found in error and disciplined?

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not allow
or contemplate the expulsion of a member of the Synod on the
basis of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval of
the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. For a thorough treatment
of this issue, see Opinion 02-2309.

Adopted Jan. 20-21, 2003

Communication to the Council of Presidents
and the Board of Directors

Chairman Waiter Tesch spoke of his attendance at the Febru-
ary 6-7, 2004 joint meeting of the Council of Presidents and the
Board of Directors, where he volunteered that the Commission on
Constitutional Matters would again review the eight opinions to
which the Board of Directors has objected. Accordingly, the Com-
mission discussed their review of the opinions in light of the docu-
ments furnished by the Board of Directors detailing the Board’s
specific objections to the opinions. The Commission decided to
offer the following response, sent on March 23 to the chairmen of
the Council of Presidents and the Board of Directors.

COMMUNICATION TO THE COUNCIL OF
PRESIDENTS AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

At the recent joint meeting of the Council of Presidents and the
Board of Directors, the chairman of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters (CCM) stated that the CCM would again revisit its eight opin-
ions which the Board of Directors has resolved to be “of no effect.” This
the CCM has done.

2007 Convention Workbook

At its February, 2004, regular meeting, the Board of Directors
passed a resolution entitled, “Board of Directors Resolutions Regard-
ing CCM Opinions.” Several of the resolves of that action pertain di-
rectly to the CCM and the eight opinions. They are as follows together
with the CCM’s response.

Resolved, That the Board of Directors requests the Commission
on Constitutional Matters to reconsider Opinions 02-2296, 02-2309,
02-2320, 02-2259, 03-2357, 03-2358, 03-2359, and 03-2365.
Response: As promised to the Council of Presidents and the Board

of Directors, the members of the CCM have again reviewed the eight
opinions.

Resolved, The Board of Directors requests the Commission on
Constitutional Matters to withdraw these opinions to allow the is-
sues involved to be addressed by the 2004 synodical convention.
Response: Having reviewed the eight opinions, the CCM remains

of the opinion that these opinions are correct, appropriate, and consis-
tent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Further, it is not
necessary for these opinions to be withdrawn in order to allow the issues

‘involved to be addressed by the 2004 synodical convention. Bylaw

3.905 d provides that any opinion of the CCM shall be binding on the
question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical conven-
tion. Thus the Synod has reserved unto itself the right to review, revise,
modify, alter, or reject any opinion of the CCM and thereby address the
issue involved.

Resolved, That, immediately upon such action being taken by
the Commission on Constitutional Matters, the two Board of Direc-
tors’ resolutions adopted at its November, 2003 meeting concern-
ing these CCM opinions will be similarly withdrawn so as to allow
the issues involved to be considered by the 2004 synodical conven-
tion.

Response: The two resolutions adopted at its November, 2003,
meeting state that the Board of Directors ‘’cannot agree with or accept”
the eight opinions of the CCM and that those opinions are “of no ef-
fect.” These resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors are directly
contrary to Bylaw 3.183 d 2 which states that the Board of Directors
“shall have the right to call up for review, criticism, modification or re-
vocation any action or policy of a program board, commission, or coun-
cil, except opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters.” If
the CCM were to withdraw the questioned opinions, the promised with-
drawal action by the Board of Directors would be an empty gesture
since the withdrawal of the opinions by the CCM makes those opinions
a nullity and thereby “of no effect.” Further, the Board of Directors
could then claim to be acting in accord with the Constitution and By-
laws of the Synod since the constitution and bylaw limitations upon the
activities of the Board of Directors as determined in those opinions
would no longer exist.

Resolved, That the Board of Directors requests that the Commission
on Constitutional Matters consider the attached comments in connec-
tion with its reconsideration of its opinion.

Response: After several requests by the CCM, the Board of Direc-
tors has set forth a detailed explanation of its concerns regarding the
eight opinions. These concerns have been reviewed by the CCM. How-
ever, the CCM cannot agree with the conclusions detailed in those ex-
planations.

A common thread running through the comments of the Board of
Directors is its assertion of greater authority than that conferred cur-
rently by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. ft advocates that
its supervisory power over all the property and business affairs of the
Synod allows it to determine actions and authority which the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws presently give to other officers, boards and commis-
sions. Further, the effect of the Board’s greater assertion of authority
will necessarily be to influence doctrinal matters through its control of
finances. If the polity of the Synod is to be changed, such change must
come from the Synod in convention assembled and not by fiat of an of-
ficer or board.

Adopted March 22, 2004

Validity of Conference Call Meetings (03-2378)

In an e-mailed letter received December 29, 2003, a member of
a board of regents of an educational institution of the Synod asked
questions regarding the validity of conference call meetings when
held under protest.

Question 1: If one or more of the members of a board of regents
object to a conference call meeting before it is held and