LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 3, 2004, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question:

Does the current dispute resolution process that involves [an individual and congregation in
my District] continue under the old or the newly accepted process passed by the convention?

The President of the Synod, in an E-mailed letter dated August 3, 2004, asked the same question
prompted by another dispute case.
Question:

What is the status of cases involving as parties members of the Synod whose suspended status
was in the process of appeal prior to adoption of extensive amendments by the 62nd Regular
Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to the Bylaws of the Synod regarding
the process of suspended status and appeals for removal thereof?

Opinion: The 2004 convention adopted Res. 8-01A, resulting in significant changes to the Synod’s
dispute resolution process. The resolution included no provision to address these questions.
However, similarly significant changes were made by the 1992 convention in its adoption of Res. 5-01B,
resulting in a transition from the then-existing adjudication and appeals process to the new dispute
resolution process. The 1992 resolution included provisions for transition, resolving that “all cases
currently in the adjudication or appeals process be concluded under the existing bylaws governing
adjudication and appeals” and that the “new procedure shall apply to all dispute resolutions initiated after
the date of adoption of this amendment without regard to the date of onset of the dispute.” These
provisions were then also referenced by the Commission on Constitutional Matters in its response to
specific questions in the months following the convention action (Ag. 1938; Ag. 1962).
In light of this precedent, the Commission concludes that the same understanding and practice should
hold true in the present. All cases currently in dispute resolution, including the cases in question, are to be
concluded under the bylaws that existed at the time of the initiation of the cases unless such cases were in
such early stage that the former bylaw requirements did not yet pertain. In such case, as in the case of all
other dispute resolutions initiated after the convention action, the changed procedures will apply.
288. Omission of “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” in Art. II of Constitution
(04-2402)
In an E-mailed letter dated July 22, 2004, a pastor of the Synod asked “the reason for omitting ‘The
Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope’ from Article II of the Constitution.”
The pastor further states: “In the Tappert ed. it states in the introduction to the Treatise, ‘Unlike the
Smalcald Articles, the Treatise was officially adopted in Smalcald as a confession of faith. It was
intended as a supplement to the Augsburg Confession and was not, as used to be supposed, an appendix
to the Smalcald Articles. All the clergymen who were present signed the Treatise; the signature of Luther
is wanting because he was too ill to attend the meeting.’”
Opinion: Since Bylaw 3.905 d indicates that one of the functions of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters is to: “interpret the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions upon the written request of a
member…of the Synod,” and since the question as posed goes beyond the scope of these responsibilities,
the Commission suggests that the question would better be posed to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations.
289. CUS Continuing Level Appointments (04-2403)
In an E-mailed letter dated July 27, 2004, an associate professor of a Synod university asked whether the
failure to offer continuing level appointments in the Concordia University System (CUS) is a violation of
a synodical bylaw.
196