LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 346

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

346 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

the expulsion of a member from the Synod under Article XIII
(2.13.1; 2.14.1; 2.14.3; 2.14.4),

Question 2: In this bylaw, do the adjectives “formal” and “written”
modify an “accusation” as well as a “complaint”? In
other words, can this accusation be informal and/or un-
written?

Opinion: If it has been determined that Bylaw section 2.14 is the
appropriate bylaw section and if an action is to be commenced, this
bylaw section, which prescribes the procedure for expulsion from
membership in the Synod, requires in Bylaw 2.14.4 “a formal writ-
ten complaint or accusation made by a member of the Synod who
has carried out the above provision (Bylaw 2.14.3)” unless the dis-
trict president becomes aware of information that could lead to ex-
pulsion by his own personal knowledge (emphasis added).

Question 3: Can the noun “complaint” or the noun “accusation”
refer to an expression that occurs outside the process
for expelling a member from the Synod, such as a pub-
lic rebuke of public sin?

Qpinion: Although the words ‘“‘complaint” and “accusation” are
used elsewhere in the Bylaws, the Constitution, Bylaws, and reso-
lutions of the Synod do not address this question.

Question 4: Does this bylaw forbid any member of the Synod from
publicly rebuking another member for public sin such
as false doctrine prior to i.) the rebuker consulting with
the appropriate district president (i.e., the consultation
mentioned in this bylaw) and/or ii.) the process for ex-
pulsion which follows upon this consultation?

Opinion: The bylaw in question deals only with the process of ex-
pulsion from membership. The provisions and processes of the
bylaw (expulsion from membership) do not prohibit any Christian
from following biblical and confessional principles in rebuking a
Christian brother or sister so long as the constitutional responsibil-
ities for ecclesiastical supervision are not being assumed and so
long as the member will also abide by the bylaw when and if it is
determined that Bylaw section 2.14 applies.

Commission Opinion 04-2401 opined: “This bylaw [2.14.3] and
related bylaws do not apply to a person who has not entered a for-
mal complaint.” Opinion 05-2422 also addressed this matter:

The question posed assumes that the person who wishes to speak
out has become an accuser under Bylaw section 2.14. Should a member
of the Synod choose to initiate the Bylaw section 2.14 process, that per-
son must abide by the provisions of that process, including the prohibi-
tion of publicity under Bylaw 2.14.7.7 (g). In an earlier opinion (01-
2243), the Commission offered definition of such publicity:

The word “publicity” as used in the bylaw is defined in Webster's
New World Dictionary as “any information or action that brings a per-
son, cause, etc. to public notice.” Use of the press or other means by a
party involved in the matter to bring to the attention of the public in-
formation regarding the matter or to advocate a position is “publicity”
and is prohibited by the bylaw if it occurs while a matter in dispute is
still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending.

Members of the Synod walk together according to the covenants
that they have mutually agreed upon by such membership, as delineated
in the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. One of those
covenants is provided in Bylaw 2.14.3 (c), which details how members
of the Synod have agreed to respond “even if the alleged violation of
Article XIII of the Constitution is considered to be ‘public.’” In such
case Maithew 18:15 is still followed.

2007 Convention Workbook

For further help, see Opinions 04-2401 (October, 2004) and 05-
2422 (April, 2005) in their entirety.

Question 5: Does this point of the Bylaw [2.14.3 (c)] forbid any
member of the Synod from publicly rebuking another
member for public sin such as false doctrine prior to
i.) the rebuker consulting with the appropriate district
president (i.e., the consultation mentioned in Bylaw
2.14.3) and/or ii.) the process for expulsion which fol-
lows upon this consultation?

Opinion: The answer to question four applies.

Question 6: May a member of the Synod (member Alpha) be pro-
hibited from bringing to the appropriate district presi-
dent a matter which could lead to another member’s
(member Beta’s) expulsion from the Synod on the
grounds that member Alpha has previously publicly re-
buked member Beta for a public sin such as false doc-
trine?

Opinion: Bylaw section 2.14 and the related bylaws have no such

prohibition.

Question 7: May a member of the Synod (member Gamma) be
prohibited from publicly rebuking another member of
the Synod (member Delta) for a public sin such as
false doctrine on the grounds that member Gamma has
Not yet engaged in steps enumerated in Bylaw 2.14.3ff.
such as a face-to-face rebuke and/or communication
with the appropriate District President?

Opinion: Bylaw section 2.14 and the related bylaws have no such
prohibition. The answer to question four applies.

Question 8: Do the words in the bylaw, “this provision of Matthew
18:15 shall be followed,” make the following of this
provision incumbent upon members of the Synod by
reason of the fact that the provision is in Matthew
18:15? If so, why? If not, why not?

Opinion: The Standard Operating Procedures Manual that serves
as a comprehensive procedures manual for the provisions set
forth in Bylaw section 2.14, states, “Matthew 18 and the Eighth
Commandment undergird the bylaws that set forth this Bylaw 2.14
process for expulsion of membership from the Synod. While
Matthew 18 provides the basis for church discipline in a local con-
gregation, it also provides guidance and a pattern for all Christians
and, along with the Eighth Commandment, is to be observed in
this procedure as applicable. The reputations of the accused and ac-
cuser are to be protected.” And further it states, “The primary
purpose of Bylaw section 2.14 and the procedure in this manual is
not for the expulsion of a member from the Synod but for repen-
tance and reconciliation, to win and restore the brother or sister or
sister congregation (Matt. 18:15~20; Gal. 6:1-5; Cf. Bylaws
1.10.1-1.10.1.6)...”

Finally, the Commission encourages the questioner to review
the May, 2006 report of the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (CTCR) entitled. Public Rebuke of Public Sin, which is
applicable and helpful.

Adopted Feb. 2, 2007