LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 15-17, 2002, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: None of the officers mentioned has the authority to direct the President in his constitutionallymandated responsibilities.
Question 4: “Constitution Article XI F 2 sets forth the duties of the Board of Directors: ‘It shall exercise
supervision over all the property and business affairs of the Synod.’ Does this include
‘general oversight responsibilities for the behavior of the Synod’s members toward one
another?’”
Opinion: The Board of Directors does not have general oversight responsibility for the behavior of the
Synod’s members toward one another.
Question 5: “In light of Bylaw 3.183 d 2, does the Board of Directors have the authority to order the
Communications Department, the editor of the REPORTER, all program boards, all officers
of Synod, and all staff not to distribute information?”
Opinion: The Commission will respond to this question in its forthcoming opinion 02-2259.
Question 6: “When a complaint is filed under Bylaw 2.27, is it legitimate to invoke the limitation of 8.21
e before the steps mandated in 2.27 have been completed? To do so confuses two
intentionally separate procedures.”
Opinion: See Opinion 02-2251.
Question 7: If Matthew 18 has not been followed as Scripture itself requires, and as referenced in Bylaws
2.27 a 2, Preamble to Chapter VIII, and 8.07 e, then must not charges be dropped with
prejudice?
Opinion: The Bylaws make no such provision. Such concern should be brought to the District President.
However, Matthew 18 is an integral part of the entire dispute resolution procedure, even as reconciliation
is the ultimate goal of the entire process. This is clearly stated in the Preamble to Chapter VIII: “The
words of Jesus provide the basis for church discipline for the local congregation. The same passage also
grants Christ’s guidance for all Christians in seeking to settle other disputes, many of which fall outside
the purview of church discipline involving the congregation. In either case, the steps of Matthew 18
should be applied lovingly in both formal and informal settings. The parties and others attempting to
effect resolution of a dispute must always remain mindful that the church has been given the ‘ministry of
reconciliation’ (2 Cor. 5:18). Hence, conflict resolution in the church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring
the erring member in a spirit of gentleness (Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system practiced
in society” (Preamble to Chapter VIII, paragraph 3).
22. Role of Board of Directors in Dispute Resolution Process (02-2258)
In a letter dated February 17, 2002, a pastor raises an issue prompted by an OFFICIAL NOTICE by the
Secretary of the Synod published in the February 2002 issue of REPORTER in which he requested
comments regarding the dispute resolution process. The pastor expressed concern that Resolution 7-19 of
the 2001 synodical convention, which gives responsibility to the Council of Presidents to review Bylaw
2.27 g, is contradicted by the decision of the Board of Directors referred to in the official notice. He also
expressed concern that the Board of Directors by this action has inappropriately involved itself in
supervision of the dispute resolution process.
Question:

Does the action of the Board of Directors of the Synod reported in an official notice in the
February, 2002 issue of Reporter, contradict Res. 7-19 of the 2001 convention of the Synod,

14