LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 31−February 1, 2006, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

it, go ahead.” May Dr. Kuhn continue to serve as a member or chairman of the Board of
Directors while actively failing to affirm the will of the convention?
Opinion: It is unclear from the question as presented whether Dr. Kuhn was making a presentation as
chairman of the Board of Directors or as an individual member of the Synod. As an individual member of
the Synod, Dr. Kuhn is entitled to express his opinion regarding any issue. If his comments were made as
a member (and particularly as the chairman) of the Board of Directors, the comments quoted would be
highly inappropriate and would at least subject him to the admonition of the President. While the
chairman, as with any member of the Board of Directors, is entitled and encouraged to speak his or her
mind in the deliberations of the Board, under the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws the Board as a whole,
and all those speaking on its behalf, are bound to support the actions of the Synod and not to encourage
litigation against it. Primary responsibility for determining the appropriate response to the actions
described belongs to the Board of Directors itself and to the President. It is the President under Art. XI B
4 who is required to see to it that the resolutions of the Synod are carried out.
Question 4:

Is the described conduct of Dr. Kuhn and the Board subject to either the dispute resolution
process under Bylaw [sic 1.09] 1.10 or, based on repeated offensive conduct, the provisions
of Bylaw 2.14?

Opinion: Bylaw 2.14 addresses the issue of expulsion of a congregation or individual from membership
in the Synod and is therefore inapplicable to the Board of Directors as an officer of the Synod. Expulsion
from the Synod is governed by Art. XIII of the Constitution and may occur only where a member acts
contrary to the confession laid down in Art. II and the conditions of membership laid down in Art. VI or
persists in offensive conduct. It is not the responsibility or authority of the Commission on Constitutional
Matters but rather of the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor under Bylaw 2.14 to make an initial
determination whether the fact scenario described would meet such standard, and only pursuant to the
processes described in that bylaw.
With respect to the possible applicability of the dispute resolution process under Bylaw section 1.10, that
bylaw section identifies the persons and issues which may be dealt with under that process. As a member
of the Synod, Dr. Kuhn would be a person to whom the bylaw applies, and it would similarly apply to
members of the Board of Directors either as individual members of the Synod or as lay members of a
congregation of the Synod holding a position within the Synod (Bylaw 1.10.2). To the extent that the
dispute involves theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues (other than expulsion) the bylaw is the
exclusive remedy to resolve such dispute between members of the Synod. To the extent that there
continues to be a dispute between Dr. Kuhn or other members of the Board of Directors and another
qualifying party under Bylaw 1.10.2 that is based on theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues, the
dispute resolution process contained in Bylaw section 1.10 would apply.
122. President’s Use of Executive Power (05-2441)
A pastor of the Synod in a September 9, 2005 letter asked a series of questions regarding the reference in
Bylaw 1.5.9 to human resource policies and regarding the use of executive power by the President of the
Synod under Bylaw 3.3.1.3 (k). After consideration, the secretary of the Commission was instructed to
communicate with the pastor, noting that a number of issues may have been resolved by the
Commission’s Opinion 05-2430 and inviting the pastor to resubmit any remaining questions.
123. Review of Ohio District Bylaws (05-2452)
In a letter dated November 29, 2005, the President of the Ohio District forwarded a copy of the revised
Bylaws of his district and requested the Commission’s review and approval. After review, the
Commission offered the following response:
82