LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 29, 2003, Page 14

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

All members of the Synod and of its congregations are to beware of the danger of groups
and activities which divide and splinter the Synod. Synodical and District officers and
board and commission members have a special responsibility to identify divisive and
subversive movements and to avoid them. By their example and advice they are to
conserve and promote the unity of the true faith and the oneness of the Synod.
While the above opinion has been prompted by a specific situation, it holds generally and
addresses itself to a problem which has troubled the Synod for some time. We are living
in an age in which a great number of institutions are under attack and in which lack of
confidence is rampant, an age of the conspiracy syndrome and the power syndrome, after
which "the Gentiles" seek. It should not be so among us. We need to remember that we
are not two or three or more synods; we are one synod, pledged to share the journey. It is
within the context of the Synod—the forums, channels, and procedures which the Synod
itself establishes—that differing viewpoints need to be discussed and an issue finally
decided. Continuing dialog beyond the point of decision must also be carried on within
the same synodically agreed upon framework and in deference to the majority will. We
have committed ourselves not to that which divides but to that which unites. We are one
synod.
151. Restricted Status (03-2331)
A member of the Synod, in a January 27, 2003 letter, asked a series of questions regarding an
individual’s placement and retention on restricted status under certain conditions.
Question 1:

If a member of Synod is not notified “in writing as to the specific reasons for
having been placed on restricted status” is the member actually on restricted status?

Opinion: Yes, placement on restricted status is an initial action taken by a District President for
reasons given in Bylaw 2.23 a. The District President is then required to carry out the provisions
of Bylaw 2.23 c, including notification of the individual who has been restricted “in writing as to
the specific reasons for having been placed on restricted status.” If the District President has not
fulfilled his responsibility in that regard, the member has the right under Bylaw 2.23 d to
challenge the placement on restriction or the continuance of such restricted status by filing a
Petition for Removal of Restricted Status with the Council of Presidents.
Question 2:

If a member of Synod is not notified “in writing as to the reasons for such
continuance of restricted status” is the restricted status removed by default after the
year is completed?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.23 c allows a District President to extend the restricted status beyond one year
by annually notifying the member in writing as to the reasons for such continuance of restricted
status. If the notice is inadequate or the member disagrees with the reasons asserted, again, the
individual has the remedy provided under Bylaw 2.23 d, to file a Petition for Removal of
Restricted Status with the Council of Presidents.
Question 3:

If a member of Synod is not notified “in writing as to the specific reasons for
having been placed on restricted status” how is the member able to know what he
must do to satisfactorily resolve the issues of concern (i.e., counseling, medical
treatment, doctrinal studies)?

116