LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 1, 2001, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

§
§

He or she remains accountable to the Synod for teaching and practice and is to be supervised
by the appropriate District President according to Bylaws 2.21ff. (CCM Ag. 2115 – August
24, 1998).
Ecclesiastical supervision is provided by the President of the District through which
membership in the Synod is held (Bylaw 2.41 i), who is responsible for overseeing the
doctrine and life of that member (Art. XII 7).

The Commission notes that “the District through which an individual holds membership and the District
through which a member is ecclesiastically supervised will not be determined in any case on the basis of
District membership of the congregation to which the individual belongs” (Bylaw 2.41 j). Church workers
called or appointed by recognized service organizations may therefore hold membership in any LCMS
congregation, since such membership does not affect District membership or ecclesiastical supervision.
Regarding the specific question posed to the Commission, it rules that District membership and
ecclesiastical supervision are to be determined by the geographic location of the RSO. The geographic
District in which an RSO is physically located will be the District through which church workers who
have accepted an executive or staff position will hold synodical membership and from which District’s
president they will receive ecclesiastical supervision. This decision is consistent with Bylaw 2.43 which,
while it addresses the responsibility of District Presidents for maintaining the roster of the Synod,
specifically mentions workers called by “institutions which relate to” a District as holding membership in
that particular District. While an RSO formally relates to “the board of the Synod to which the
organization desires to relate” (Bylaw 14.03 c), the Commission assumes that it will also relate most
closely to that District to which it is geographically most proximate. Non-geographic Districts are
excluded from consideration by Bylaw 2.41 d, which allows membership in non-geographic Districts by
persons serving entities other than a congregation or District only under specific conditions.
(Note: The Commission instructed that its secretary write a letter to the Commission on Structure calling
its attention to the need for further clarification in the Bylaws in this regard.)
216. Questions re Dispute Resolution Process (01-2235)

In an October 25, 2001 letter a pastor involved in a dispute resolution process asks for “an official
understanding of certain questions” that pertain to the process, explaining that two of the questions “cover
a further explanation of terms used in Bylaw VIII” and that the other two “may or may not be an
unwritten part of every Constitution calling upon all parties to deal with one another in an atmosphere of
fairness.”
Question 1:

I ask for your understanding of the term “informal” as used in Bylaw 8.05. A
further extrapolation on this point would be that if a party in a matter of dispute
will not meet without witnesses, then has the matter gone from “informal” to
“formal”?

Opinion: Bylaw 8.05 differentiates between “the formal reconciliation process” which is delineated in
succeeding bylaws and “Informal Efforts toward Reconciliation” referred to in its title. It defines informal
efforts as “meet(ing) together, face to face, in a good-faith attempt to settle (the) dispute.” The
parenthetical biblical reference to a specific verse of the Matthew 18 process further supports this
understanding: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.
If he listens to you, you have won your brother over” (Matt. 18:15 NIV). When such informal, face to
face efforts have been inadequate, the parties are to be directed to engage in further such efforts before the
formal reconciliation process that involves other persons, e.g., witnesses, can begin (Bylaw 8.07 c).

149