LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 15-17, 2002, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Finally, the Commission has also considered the additional issues raised in the letters it received and
offers the following additional comments in response:
1) Issue: If a complaint is made against a member of the Synod and the District President concludes
that the facts form a basis for the expulsion of the member from the Synod, the District President
would have to discuss the matter with leaders of the congregation served by the member and
possibly the congregation itself. Would not the President of the District thereby be giving
publicity to the matter?
Response: Bylaw 2.25 a states that when a formal proceeding has been commenced against a
member of the Synod that may lead to expulsion of the member from the Synod, the member
shall have suspended status. Paragraph d of the same bylaw requires the District President to
notify the congregation or other agency being served by the member of the Synod of such
suspended status. Therefore discussions with the leaders of the congregation or the congregation
itself are not publicity. Rather, they are part of the dispute resolution process.
2) Issue: A complaint against a member of the Synod may be made by a non-member of the Synod.
Such non-member is not bound by the Bylaws of the Synod and thus such non-member is not
bound by the prohibition against publicity set forth in Bylaw 8.21 e.
Response: This is correct. This is, however, what the Bylaws provide. If there is a problem it is
with the provisions of the Bylaws and not with the opinion issued by the Commission. Nonmember complainants should be encouraged to respect the intent and nature of the dispute
resolution process that has been established by the Synod and as outlined in the Preamble to
Chapter VIII of the Bylaws. The Commission suggests that this matter also be reviewed by the
Commission on Structure.
3) Issue: The opinion of the Commission “gags” the President of the Synod who, under Article XI
of the Constitution of the Synod, “shall have the power to advise, admonish and reprove”
(subsection B, paragraph 3). How can he do this if the CCM ruling takes away his free speech?
Response: Article XIII 2 of the Constitution provides: “Expulsion shall be executed only after
following such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod.” As pointed out in its
Opinion 01-2243, the bylaw prohibition against publicity in a proceeding under Bylaw 2.25 f is
applicable to the President of the Synod since he is a party involved in the matter. Thus, the
prohibition against the President of the Synod giving publicity to a matter in dispute has its
genesis in the Bylaws of the Synod and not in the opinion of the Commission.
Properly understood, the opinion of the Commission does not infringe upon the duties of the
President that are set forth in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. There is no prohibition
against the President communicating with the members of the Synod as to the underlying
doctrinal topics that are involved in a disputed matter. The President cannot give publicity to the
particular matter in dispute. Some confusion appears to exist as to the Commission’s use of the
term “matter in dispute” to which the prohibition of publicity applies. This phrase includes the
details of the charges or allegations made, the correspondence and other communication which
follow, the status of proceedings or deliberations, the President’s actions pertaining thereto, and
his opinion as to who is right or wrong. The duty of the President of the Synod under Article XI B
of the Constitution is to supervise the doctrine and administration of officers, employees,
Districts, and District Presidents, to see to it that they act in accordance with the Synod’s
Constitution, to admonish all who in any way depart from it, and, if such admonition is not

10