LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 10-11, 2002, Page 11

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Synod.” The Bylaws, therefore, place the responsibility for doctrinal oversight of boards of regents of the
Concordia University System under the Office of the President and not the BHE/CUS Board.
Question 2:

“Does the Board of Higher Education have the authority if needed to remove Regents
whom (sic) are not upholding the official positions of Synod?”

Opinion: The Bylaws of the Synod grant no such authority to the BHE/CUS Board.
Question 3:

“Do the universities of the Concordia System have the authority to begin foundations for
the purposes of keeping monies away from Synodical control?”

Opinion: Bylaw 3.607 reads: “Since the Foundation serves all the Synod, no new foundations shall be
established by Districts, colleges, seminaries, universities, and agencies without prior approval of the
Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.” Bylaw 6.63 adds: “All surplus
institutional funds above an adequate working balance shall be deemed to be surplus and shall be
deposited with the Vice-President−Finance—Treasurer of the Synod for investment. Earnings from such
investments shall be credited to the depositing institution.” Therefore, universities of the Concordia
University System do not have the authority to begin foundations for any reason without the approval of
the Board of Directors of the Synod.
48. Request for Reconsideration of Opinion 02-2267 re Role of Matthew 18 in the Synod’s Dispute
Resolution Process (02-2277)
The First Vice-President of a District in a letter dated June 4, 2002, submitted a “Motion for
Reconsideration” of the Commission’s opinion 02-2267, expressing disappointment and offering detailed
explanation why said opinion should be reconsidered.
Opinion: In support of the request for reconsideration, the writer points out the requirements under both
Bylaw Chapter VIII (the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process) and Bylaw 6.47 (dealing with complaints
against faculty members) that a face-to-face meeting and informal resolution efforts occur between the
complainant and the accused before a formal dispute process may be invoked. The writer further suggests
that, by implication, such must also be the case under Bylaw 2.27, particularly in view of prior
Commission opinions 02-2251 and 02-2257. Unfortunately, the suggested analysis ignores the differences
between the purpose and express process of Bylaw 2.27 and the purpose and express processes set forth in
the other two circumstances. Bylaw 2.27 is expressly a process to terminate congregational or individual
membership.
Because the goal of the church is not expulsion, but reconciliation, the drafters of the bylaws and the
conventions which adopted them recognized the desire to seek such reconciliation in lieu of proceeding
unhesitatingly down the adversarial process which may lead to expulsion. Bylaw 2.27 a 2 expressly
requires the responsible District President to follow the guidelines of Matthew 18 and encourages him to
seek reconciliation. As prior opinions of the Commission have recognized, attempts to seek reconciliation
are included in the District President’s duty to act on a complaint within 90 days. During such efforts, the
time requirements of the bylaw may be tolled. In opinion 02-2251, the Commission attempted to clarify
the resulting connection between Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws.
As reflected in opinion 02-2257, a Bylaw 2.27 process cannot be dismissed on the basis that Matthew 18
has not been followed. Bylaw 8.05 requires a face-to-face meeting as a precondition to proceeding to a
formal dispute resolution process initiated under Chapter VIII. Bylaw 2.27 has no such precondition
because it is a reflection of the church’s ecclesiastical responsibility to assure a member’s continued
adherence to the Synod’s qualifications for membership. That responsibility is independent of the source

33