LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 11, 2002, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

such director) is responsible to the Synod through its board, which shall exercise supervision in
accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws, resolutions of the convention, and the decisions of the
respective board or commission (Bylaw 1.07 e). Therefore, an employee of the Synod is accountable for
his/her actions to the board or commission he/she serves.
231. Questions re Implementation of Matthew 18 in Bylaw 2.27 (01-2244)
In a November 19, 2001 letter, a pastor of the Synod asked a series of questions regarding the
implementation of Matthew 18 in the dispute process and other related matters. The Commission
responded as follows.
QUESTION 1: Should the Commission on Constitutional Matters render rulings on how
Matthew 18 is to be implemented?
Response: Bylaw 2.27 a 2 directs a District President to follow the guidelines of Matthew 18: 15-16.
Bylaw 6.47 a requires a Board of Regents to direct the complainant to first meet face to face with the
respondent in an attempt to resolve the issue (Matt. 18:15) and have the president of the educational
institution assist in the attempt. Bylaw 6.47 d provides that if a Board of Regents determines that all
informal reconciliation efforts have failed, the Board of Regents shall form a Review Committee of five
persons (Matt. 18:16). Bylaw 8.05 indicates that 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 (Matt. 18:15). Bylaw 8.07 c states that if the reconciler determines that
informal reconciliation efforts have been inadequate, the reconciler shall direct the parties to engage in
further informal reconciliation efforts.
Bylaw 3.905 d directs the Commission on Constitutional Matters to interpret the Synod's Constitution,
Bylaws and resolutions upon the request of an appropriate party. The Commission on Constitutional
Matters is not a fact-finding body. Thus, if the question on how Matthew 18 is to be implemented
involves an interpretation of the Constitution, Bylaws or resolutions of the Synod, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters will render an opinion. However, if the question involves a factual or theological
determination, the Commission has no authority to render an opinion.
QUESTION 2:

If, on the one hand, questions about the implementation of Matthew 18 are of a
theological nature and outside the purview of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters, what entity within Synod would be called upon to make a definitive
interpretation in cases which required clarification?

Response: Bylaw 8.21 i provides that if any part of a dispute involves a specific question of doctrine or
doctrinal application, each party shall have the right to an opinion from the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.
QUESTION 3:Would the Commission on Constitutional Matters be willing to consider the
possibility that Matthew 18 does not necessarily mean that all complainants must
have a face-to-face encounter with the offender?
Response: See the responses to questions 1 and 2 above.
QUESTION 4: Bylaw 2.27 a 2 references Matthew 18:15-16, while the Preamble to Bylaw VIII
references Matthew 18:15-20 and Bylaw 8.07 e references Matthew 18:16. Is
Matthew 18 in fact treated consistently throughout the Bylaws?

163