LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 20-21, 2003, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

appropriate District President. If the ecclesiastical supervisor declines to take any action, the party that
has made the allegation may appeal that decision to the Praesidium of the Synod. Should the Praesidium
also decline to take any action on the allegation, in the words of Bylaw 2.27 b, that “shall terminate the
matter.” In other words, the matter is dead and there is no way that the complainant can invoke any of the
provisions of Chapter VIII.
Question 6:

If the synodical President or District President are carrying out ecclesiastical supervision
according to the Constitution and Article XI and Article III 8 or Article XII and seeing to it
that the resolutions of the Synod are being carried out (honored and upheld), under what
constitutional provision may the President be recused from any subsequent involvement.

Opinion: There is no such constitutional provision.
Question 7:

When the Synod has clearly stated its position or when an ecclesiastical supervisor has
expressed his judgment concerning an issue based on a resolution adopted by the Synod,
does a dissenter have the right to invoke Bylaw 2.27 or Chapter VIII rather than 2.39 c, the
stated procedure for dissent referred to in Bylaw 1.09 d?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.27 is not the method provided by the Bylaws to resolve disputes as to what the
doctrines of the church should be. Rather, it provides procedures for expulsion from the Synod according
to Article XIII of the Constitution. Where there is disagreement by the complainant about the doctrines of
the church, the action is one of a dissenter, which is governed by the provisions of Bylaw 2.39 c.
Question 8:

Is it a conflict of interest when a District President and/or synodical President are carrying
out their duties of ecclesiastical supervision and seeing to it that the resolutions of the
Synod are being carried out? If the answer is “yes”’ in what sense is it a “conflict of
interest” and how is conflict of interest then defined.

Opinion: The answer to the first part of this question is “no.” An ecclesiastical supervisor carrying out his
responsibilities of ecclesiastical supervision is not creating a conflict of interest with respect to his duties
and responsibilities imposed by the Constitution or Bylaws.
A Bylaw 2.27 action against a District President falls within the provisions of Bylaw 2.27 g, and the
synodical President becomes the investigating officer. Disqualification of the President of the Synod, as
with the District President, occurs where he is a party to the matter in dispute, has a conflict of interest, or
is otherwise unable to act. The fact that the investigating officer, whether a synodical or District
President, has been involved in performing his ecclesiastical responsibilities in supervising the accused
party is in and of itself not a basis for disqualification. In fact, the Constitution of the Synod presupposes
that since or when there is prior supervision, advice, or futile admonition regarding the activity giving rise
to a charge, the synodically-designated ecclesiastical supervisor would have been involved in that advice
or admonition. Carrying out such responsibility does not make the ecclesiastical supervisor a party to the
matter in dispute nor give rise to a conflict of interest. Rather, the duty to investigate flows from and is a
natural outgrowth of the District or synodical President’s ecclesiastical supervisory responsibility.
Question 9:

Under what constitutional provision, if any, may any person or group, any board or
commission, or any other entity assume de jure or de facto the responsibility of
ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod that has been given alone to the synodical President
or the District President in his respective District. In other words, may any entity that does
not have the ecclesiastical supervision, which is the sole responsibility of the synodical
President or a District President, publicly reprove or admonish another entity? If the answer
is “yes” how may the Synod avoid havoc, disorder and confusion?
84