LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 323

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS 323

(c) He shall call up for review any action by an individual officer,
executive, or agency that, in his view, may be in violation of the Consti-
tution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod.

(1) If he deems appropriate, he shall request that such action be
altered or reversed.

(2) If the matter cannot be resolved, he shall refer it to the Board
of Directors, the Commission on Constitutional Matters, and/or the
Synod in convention as he deems appropriate for the issues and

a rties involved.

(3) This provision in no way alters the President’s constitutional

duty to report to the Synod those who do not act in accordance with

the Constitution and do not heed his admonition, as prescribed in
Art. XI B 2 of the Constitution. (paragraph (c) of Bylaw 3.3.1.2)

(Emphasis added)

Question 5: Is it in harmony with the Constitution and above By-
laws of the Synod for any member of the Synod to en-
gage in dissenting (or promoting non-compliance)
against the Synod by use of a lawsuit, when such
members have not used the avenues of dissent as set
forth in Bylaw 1.8 of the Synod?

Opinion: No. A lawsuit is not a legitimate avenue of dissent. In the
agreement to live and work together, a member of the Synod is re-
quired to follow the avenue of dissent as set forth in Bylaw section
1.8, including honoring and upholding the resolutions of the Synod.
While a Jawsuit may be an appropriate process in which to resolve
a dispute in the secular world, members of the Synod are governed
by Bylaw section 1.8 as the required, exclusive, and agreed-to av-
enue of dissent and Bylaw section 1.10 as the required, exclusive,
and agreed-to method of dispute resolution. See the answers to
questions 1 and 2 above.

Question 6: Is it in harmony with the Constitution and above By-
laws of the Synod for any member of the Synod to en-
gage in dispute against the President of the Synod or
the Synod itself by use of a lawsuit, when such mem-
bers have not used the avenue of dispute as set forth in
Bylaw 1.10 of the Synod?

Opinion: No. In the agreement to live and work together, a member
of the Synod is required to rely exclusively and fully on the
Synod’s system of reconciliation and conflict resolution. Unless the
dispute is one concerning property rights or contract arrangements
under Bylaw 1.10.3 (a) or (b), such suit would be a gross violation
of the process of Bylaw section }.10 and the covenants which bind
members together in the Synod. The use of the Synod’s conflict
resolution procedures is the exclusive and final remedy for those
who are in dispute (Bylaw section 1.10). See the answers to ques-
tions 1, 2, and 5 above.

Question 7: If any of the above is not in harmony with the Consti-
tution and Bylaws of the Synod, what remedy does the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod provide?

Opinion: The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod provide disci-
plinary measures against any member who violates the Constitu-
tion and Bylaws of the Synod. Such provisions include Bylaw sec-
tion 1.10, “Dispute Resolution of the Synod”: “The use of the
Synod’s conflict resolution procedures shall be the exclusive and
final remedy for those who are in dispute” (Bylaw 1.10.1) and Ar-
ticle XIII of the Constitution, “Expulsion from the Synod,” and its
procedures as set forth in Bylaw sections 2.13-2.16:

The only remedy available to the Synod in response to improper ac-
tivities in the life of such a member of the Synod is, as is true with re-
spect to violations of other conditions of membership or is otherwise
appropriate under the Constitution or these Bylaws, and following the
procedures set forth in these Bylaws, to take such action as may lead to
termination of that membership and the attendant rights and privileges.
(Bylaw 2.13.2)

The ecclesiastical supervisors (the President of the Synod and
the district presidents) have disciplinary responsibilities such as
stated in Articles XI B and XII of the Constitution:

2. It is the President’s duty to see to it that all the aforementioned act
in accordance with the Synod’s Constitution, to admonish all who
in any way depart from it, and, if such admonition is not heeded,
to report such cases to the Synod.

3. The President has and always shall have the power to advise, ad-
monish, and reprove. He shall conscientiously use all means at
his command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and prac-
tice in all the districts of the Synod. (Art. XI B)

7. The district presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise super-
vision over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the
ordained and commissioned ministers of their district and ac-
quaint themselves with the religious conditions of the congrega-
tions of their district. To this end they shall visit and, according as
they deem it necessary, hold investigations in the congregations.
Their assistants in this work are the circuit counselors, who there-
fore shall regularly make their reports to the district president.

8.District presidents are empowered to suspend from membership

ordained and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to
false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in
accordance with such procedure as shall be set forth in the By-
laws of the Synod. (Art. XII)

The ecclesiastical and administrative powers and duties of the
President of the Synod provide remedy for the matter as set forth in
Bylaws 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, and 3.3.1.3, as do the duties of the district
president as set forth especially in Bylaws 4.4.4-4.4.6.

Adopted Nov. 28-29, 2005

Clarification of Bylaw 1.10.2, “Involved in
Excommunication” (05-2449)

In a letter dated October 14, 2005, a district president requested
an opinion concerning the phrase “persons involved in excommuni-
cation” in Bylaw 1.10.2. He explained that the phrase is understood
by some to entitle individual members of congregations to invoke
the Synod’s dispute resolution process “at some point before the
final vote of the assembly.”

Question: At what stage of discipline is an individual non-member
of the Synod sufficiently “involved in excommunica-
tion” to invoke the Synod’s process of dispute resolution
contained in Bylaw 1.10? .

Qpinion: While Bylaw 1.10.1.2 does make a reference to church
discipline involving a congregation, that bylaw and Bylaw 1.10.2
do not address the congregation’s process of church discipline or
the stages of discipline or at what stage a person is sufficiently “in-
volved in excommunication” to invoke the Synod’s process for dis-
pute resolution.

It is implied in the questioner’s letter that the Commission is
being asked to interpret “persons involved in excommunication.”
Bylaw 1.10.2 in part states, “This procedure is established to re-
solve, in a God-pleasing manner, disputes that involve as par-
ties...(4) persons involved in excommunication...” The Commis-
sion opines that such “persons” in fact occupy or are in possession
of the circumstance, condition, or consequence of “excommunica-
tion.” This means that the congregation has in fact already made
its judgment or given its verdict of excommunication after which
one may invoke the Synod’s dispute resolution process.

However, it must be noted that prior to invoking the formal dis-
pute resolution process of the Synod, the party in dispute must first
seek to settle the dispute face-to-face with the congregation. This
attempt may include the informal use of a district reconciler. Bylaw
1.10.5 sets forth the process: “Before any matter is submitted to the
formal reconciliation process, the parties involved in a dispute must
meet together, face-to-face, in a good faith attempt to settle their
dispute according to the scriptural mandate of Matthew 18:15 and
may involve the informal use of a reconciler.” (Emphasis added)

It must also be noted that only “procedural questions involved
in excommunication cases” can be addressed by the Synod’s dis-
pute resolution process under Bylaw section 1.10. “Relative
to...‘persons involved in excommunication,’ Bylaw 8.13 b 1 [cur-
rent Bylaw 1.10.10.2 (a)] limits the dispute resolution process to
procedural questions involved in excommunication cases. There-
fore, the process can be utilized to question the procedure followed
in an excommunication matter; it cannot be used to review the
facts, which serve as the basis of the excommunication....” (Opin-
ion 99-2157, September 14, 1999).

2007 Convention Workbook