LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 17, 2005, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

has spoken to this matter in response to a question addressed to it prior to the 1992
synodical convention. The Commission on Constitutional Matters concurs with that
response which is found on page 67 of the 1992 Convention Workbook.
Question 4:

The last sentence of Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9) seems to give [a] District a broad
brush to implement its own interpretation of bylaws and consequential punishments for
congregations who do not implement Dispute Resolution Panel recommendations. Could
[a] District suspend [the congregation] for not accepting the interpreted (sic) as binding
recommendations of a Dispute Resolution Panel? Could [the congregation] expect that
expulsion to stand as an “appropriate” response, according to Bylaw 8.11?

Opinion: The process of suspension under Bylaw 2.13.5ff (formerly Bylaw 2.25) occurs as a result of an
action to terminate membership. The process of expulsion previously contained in Bylaw 2.27 was
replaced by action of the 2004 convention, and the applicable section of the Handbook now is Bylaw
section 2.14. It is the responsibility of the district president and not the Commission on Constitutional
Matters to investigate and evaluate facts that could lead to the expulsion of a member, and to determine
whether to initiate that process to do so. The Commission is not a fact-finding body and is not authorized
to answer the question as posed.
Question 5:

On the basis of Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9), does [a] District have to take any action
other than to notify other District congregations that they are not bound by [the
congregation’s] decision?

Opinion: As suggested above, the response of the district to the situation is left to its discretion. At the
very least, it would be anticipated that the district would convey information to other congregations
potentially affected by the subject congregation’s actions, to inform them of their right not to respect the
subject congregation’s actions.
Question 6:

[Our congregation] has made a good faith request for a transfer to [another] district, but our
compliance with Bylaw 8.11 (now Bylaw 1.10.9) and the binding interpretation of Dispute
Resolution Panel recommendations have been cited as the reasons not to consider our
request. Can the CCM explain, on the basis of Bylaw 8.11, why [the congregation] should
not have her request considered and honored by the district board of directors?

Opinion: Bylaw 4.1.1.4 (formerly Bylaw 4.03 d) allows transfers between districts upon the mutual
approval of the respective district boards of directors. The Bylaws do not provide for the review of
districts’ decisions by the Commission on Constitutional Matters.
45. Dissent from Doctrinal Resolutions (05-2418)
A pastor of the Synod, in a February 14, 2005 e-mailed letter, quoted a portion of the second resolve of
2004 convention Resolution 3-08A, “To Affirm the Conclusions of the 1994 CTCR Report: The Service
of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices”: “That the Synod affirm that women on the basis of
the clear teaching of Scripture…may serve in humanly established offices in the church [i.e. president, vp,
elder].” He then stated that “the constitutions of many of our churches, once approved by the CCM, forbid
or limit the service of women from the same offices here referenced, and do so on the basis of Scripture
as well (citing arguments from the Order of Creation vs. the ‘humanly established argument of 8-01A)”
and asked the following series of questions:
Question:

How do we reconcile our congregations and our Synod’s now official position from
completely opposing positions on the role of women when they both appeal to Scripture as
19