LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 303

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 303

the Synod or according to the Bylaws that were adopted by the con-
vention.

Opinion: In a December 5, 1992 opinion (Ag. 1938), at a time
when significant changes had been made by the 1992 convention to
the Synod’s process for resolving disputes, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters (CCM) called attention to Res. 5-01B of the
convention, which resolved “‘that all cases currently under the adju-
dication or appeals process be concluded under existing bylaws”
and that the “‘new procedure shall apply to all dispute resolutions
initiated after the date of adoption” of the new dispute resolution
process, applying this principle in its response to a question that
had been submitted. Furthermore, in a May 22, 1998 opinion (Ag.
2097), in reference to an action to terminate a membership, the
Commission opined that such an action “‘is initiated by a written
complaint against a member of the Synod.”

Therefore, in response to the current question, the Commission
on the basis of the previously stated opinions concludes that the
letter received by the district president July 6, because it is a written
complaint against a member of the Synod, is an action that initi-
ates the dispute resolution process on that date. Furthermore, since
the date of the letter precedes the dates of the convention of the
Synod, the process to be followed will be that which is described
by the bylaws that were in effect on that date.

Adopted Sept. 27, 2004

Public Rebuke of False Doctrine (04-2401)

In a July 20, 2004 letter to the secretary of the Commission, a
pastor requested a response to two questions. The first question
sought clarification of the Commission’s response to question 9 of
former Opinion 02-2309. The second requested an opinion regard-
ing Bylaw 2.26 a (revised Handbook Bylaw 2.14.3) adopted by the
2004 convention of the Synod.

Question 1: Does this CCM opinion [02-2309] prohibit an LCMS
pastor from publicly rebuking the false, public doctrine
and practice of another LCMS pastor, the President of
the Synod, or a district president?

Opinion: The questioner specifically references the following ques-
tion and response of Opinion 02-2309:

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 supervision 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 supervi-
sion, which is the sole responsibility of the synodical
President or a District President, publicly reprove or ad-
monish 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 responsibil-
ity of ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given to the
President of the Synod under Article XI B or the District President
under Article XII 7. This includes the formal or official constitutional
responsibility to admonish or reprove members of the Synod. No one
is to interfere in the work of another.

The CCM opinion in question addresses the question of ecclesi-
astical supervision in the Synod, not the precise situation described
in the question raised. If and when a pastor or any individual or

group does not assume the constitutional responsibility for ecclesi-
' astical supervision in the Synod, Opinion 02-2309 does not pro-
hibit any Christian from rebuking a Christian brother so long as
biblical and confessional principles are followed. For the proper
biblical and confessional principles to be followed in rebuking a
Christian brother, the Commission would suggest that an opinion of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations be requested.
It might also be helpful for the questioner to refer to Opinion 03-
2338 for an expanded understanding of the constitutional responsi-
bility of ecclesiastical supervision.
Question 2: Does Bylaw 2.26 a (or any part of the bylaw dealing
with restricting, suspending, and expelling congrega-
tions or individuals from membership) prohibit an

LCMS pastor who has not entered a formal complaint
process from publicly rebuking the false, public doc-
trine and practice of another LCMS pastor, the Presi-
dent of the Synod, or a district president?

Opinion: The Commission assumes that the bylaw referred to as
Bylaw 2.26 a is the new bylaw adopted in Resolution 8-01A of the
2004 convention of the Synod (Bylaw 2.14.3 in the 2004 revised
Handbook). This bylaw and related bylaws do not apply to a person
who has not entered a formal complaint. The answer to question
one above also applies.

Adopted Oct. 6-8, 2004

Book Reviews Critical of a
Member of the Synod (04-2407)

In an August 3, 2004 e-mailed note to the Secretary of the
Synod, a pastor asked for clarification regarding book reviews that
are critical of an author who is a member of the Synod.

Question: It has been reported that the CCM has rendered the opin-
ion that a book review critical of an author can be con-
sidered a “complaint” and the author thereby the “ac-
cused.” Is this a correct statement? If so, how does 8-01
apply in the case of a review which criticizes the doc-
trine contained in a publication of a member of the
Synod?

Qpinion: In response to the first part of the question, that which

was said to have been reported is not a correct statement and does

not represent any previous Commission on Constitutional Matters

opinion. In its Opinion 99-2140, the Commission did respond to a

question regarding doctrinal review. However, the question to

which it responded pertained to invoking the dispute resolution
process in response to a decision of the Synod’s Commission on

Doctrinal Review. In its opinion the Commission concluded that

use of dispute resolution process, while it may be used by a mem-

ber of the Synod over against the Commission on Doctrinal Re-
view, must be limited to the question of whether proper procedures
were followed by that commission in reaching its decision. In no
known previous decision has the Commission opined that a book
review critical of an author can be considered a complaint and the
author the accused, thereby invoking the process provided by
Bylaw 2.27 (2004 Handbook Bylaw Section 2.14).

Therefore, because the statement in the question is not a correct
statement and because the question that follows is dependent upon
verification that the statement jn question is a correct statement, the
Commission concludes that a response to the second part of the
question is not required. However, the Commission nonetheless
calls attention to Bylaw 8-01 (2004 Handbook Bylaw 1.10.2) and
its statement of the purpose and objectives of the Synod’s dispute
resolution process. A book review by a member of the Synod that
criticizes the doctrine contained in a publication of another member
of the Synod is the kind of dispute for which the dispute resolution
process has been established.

Adopted Oct. 6—8, 2004

Effect of Congregational Vote on Implementation
of 2004 Resolution 7-21 (04-2409)

A pastor of the Synod in a letter to the Secretary of the Synod
dated August 17, 2004, asked regarding the consequences if the
congregations of the Synod fail to approve Resolution 7-21 of the
2004 convention by a two-thirds majority vote.

Question: If proposed Constitutional Amendment A entitled “To
Amend Constitution Regarding Officer and Board Re-
sponsibilities” as set forth in Resolution 7-21 of the
2004 convention of the Synod is not passed by a 2/3
majority vote, will the implementation or validity of any
other resolutions or changes to the bylaws passed at the
2004 convention be affected?

Opinion: It is the opinion of the Commission on Constitutional

Matters that the proposed amendment to Article XI F 2 states more

clearly what the existing language already means. Any amendment

to the Bylaws which is consistent with the former Article XI F 2

2007 Convention Workbook