Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2003 › Page 5
LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 20-21, 2003, Page 5
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Source: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (files.lcms.org)
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
Where members of Synod have doctrinal disagreements and disputes, mechanisms are in place to allow
for dialogue and discussion and the adoption of doctrinal positions (Bylaws 1.09 and 2.39). Such
disagreements or disputes, however, are not intended to lead to the bringing of charges under Bylaw 2.27
or the implementation of dispute resolution process under Chapter VIII of the Bylaws.
Question 2:
May an ordained or commissioned minister or a member congregation who has acted in a
matter after receiving the advice and authorization of his/her District President be charged
under bylaw 2.27 for such act, which could result in removal from the roster of the Synod?
Opinion: The answer to this question, as already stated in the response to question 1, is “no.” The District
President has ecclesiastical supervision of the ordained and commissioned ministers and member
congregations within his District as set forth in Article XII 7 and Bylaws 4.71, 4.73 and 4.75. When an
ordained or commissioned minister or member congregation has acted in a manner that is consistent with
the counsel of the District President, the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the
membership of its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the advice and counsel
of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the Synod.
Question 3:
May any person, member or board of the Synod, by invoking Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII
of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, be allowed to disrupt, hamper or harass the
synodical President who is responsible to the Synod (Art. XI A) in carrying out his duties
and responsibilities for ecclesiastical supervision as stated in synodical Constitution Article
XI B 1-4 and Article III 8, including advising a District President concerning a doctrinal
position of the Synod and/or a question of administrative action, thus assuming only the
rights and duties conferred on him by the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions.
Opinion: The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.27 cannot be invoked in the case of the President of the
Synod (see CCM Opinion 01-2240). Whereas there may be occasions when the use of Chapter VIII of the
Bylaws may be appropriate (see Opinion 03-2325), implementation of the dispute resolution process
should never be intended or allowed to disrupt, hamper, or harass the President as he carries out the duties
and responsibilities of his office, including those of ecclesiastical supervision. It is never appropriate to
assume rights and duties that have been conferred upon another by the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod.
Question 4:
If the answer to the previous question is “yes,” then under what circumstances can a
District President or synodical President carry out their duties without being harassed and
hampered by the invoking of Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII.
Opinion: In the case of the President of the Synod, see the answer to question 3 above. In the case of
charges brought against a District President, if he has been carrying out his responsibilities and the
charges clearly are not supportable, the investigating officer may act quickly to dismiss the matter. Should
members of the Synod abuse the Bylaws by bringing clearly unsupportable charges or complaints, such
conduct may itself give offense and should be dealt with accordingly.
Question 5:
May any person, member, or board of the Synod, after invoking Bylaw 2.27 and receiving a
perceived “unfavorable” result, then invoke Chapter VIII against a District President and/or
the synodical President although both were providing ecclesiastical supervision and seeing
to it that the doctrinal position and the resolutions of the Synod were being carried out
before Bylaw 2.27 was invoked in the first place.
Opinion: If an individual makes an allegation under Bylaw 2.27 against a member of the Synod, that
allegation is given to the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor, either the President of the Synod or the
83