LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 28−29, 2005, Page 15

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•

Under 5.01, the first sentence would better read: “The board of directors shall be elected by a
convention of the district.”

•

Under 5.12, it is unclear whether the vacancies to be filled by the Board of Directors are
vacancies to elected, appointed, or staff positions. The paragraph also does not contain any
direction regarding how suggestions are received.

•

Under 5.14, it would be helpful to include at least a reference to the LCMS Handbook provision
for holding more than one office if the principle is not articulated in the bylaw.

•

Under 6.01, it is assumed that the reference in the final sentence is to “councils.”

•

Under 6.21 and 6.31, it should be clarified who decides regarding “appropriate district staff” to
serve on these councils.

•

Under 6.41, none of the positions mentioned as members of the District Operations Council are
defined in the Bylaws.

111. Clarification of Bylaw 1.10.2, “Involved in Excommunication” (05-2449)
In a letter dated October 14, 2005, a district president requested an opinion concerning the phrase
“persons involved in excommunication” in Bylaw 1.10.2. He explained that the phrase is understood by
some to entitle individual members of congregations to invoke the Synod’s dispute resolution process “at
some point before the final vote of the assembly.”
Question:

At what stage of discipline is an individual non-member of the Synod sufficiently “involved
in excommunication” to invoke the Synod’s process of dispute resolution contained in Bylaw
1.10?

Opinion: While Bylaw 1.10.1.2 does make a reference to church discipline involving a congregation, that
bylaw and Bylaw 1.10.2 do not address the congregation’s process of church discipline or the stages of
discipline or at what stage a person is sufficiently “involved in excommunication” to invoke the Synod’s
process for dispute resolution.
It is implied in the questioner’s letter that the Commission is being asked to interpret “persons involved in
excommunication.” Bylaw 1.10.2 in part states, “This procedure is established to resolve, in a Godpleasing manner, disputes that involve as parties…(4) persons involved in excommunication…” The
Commission opines that such “persons” in fact occupy or are in possession of the circumstance,
condition, or consequence of “excommunication.” This means that the congregation has in fact already
made its judgment or given its verdict of excommunication after which one may invoke the Synod’s
dispute resolution process.
However, it must be noted that prior to invoking the formal dispute resolution process of the Synod, the
party in dispute must first seek to settle the dispute face-to-face with the congregation. This attempt may
include the informal use of a district reconciler. Bylaw 1.10.5 sets forth the process: “Before any matter is
submitted to the formal reconciliation process, the parties involved in a dispute must meet together, faceto-face, in a good faith attempt to settle their dispute according to the scriptural mandate of Matthew
18:15 and may involve the informal use of a reconciler.” (Emphasis added)
It must also be noted that only “procedural questions involved in excommunication cases” can be
addressed by the Synod’s dispute resolution process under Bylaw section 1.10. “Relative to…‘persons
involved in excommunication,’ Bylaw 8.13 b 1 [current Bylaw 1.10.10.2 (a)] limits the dispute resolution
process to procedural questions involved in excommunication cases. Therefore, the process can be

70