LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 2, 2007, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

constitutional responsibilities for ecclesiastical supervision are not being assumed and so long as the
member will also abide by the bylaw when and if it is determined that Bylaw section 2.14 applies.
Commission Opinion 04-2401 opined: “This bylaw [2.14.3] and related bylaws do not apply to a person
who has not entered a formal complaint.” Opinion 05-2422 also addressed this matter:
The question posed assumes that the person who wishes to speak out has become an
accuser under Bylaw section 2.14. Should a member of the Synod choose to initiate the
Bylaw section 2.14 process, that person must abide by the provisions of that process,
including the prohibition of publicity under Bylaw 2.14.7.7 (g). In an earlier opinion (012243), the Commission offered definition of such publicity:
The word "publicity" as used in the bylaw is defined in Webster'
s New World
Dictionary as "any information or action that brings a person, cause, etc. to
public notice." Use of the press or other means by a party involved in the matter
to bring to the attention of the public information regarding the matter or to
advocate a position is “publicity” and is prohibited by the bylaw if it occurs while
a matter in dispute is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or
pending.
Members of the Synod walk together according to the covenants that they have mutually
agreed upon by such membership, as delineated in the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions. One of those covenants is provided in Bylaw 2.14.3 (c), which details how
members of the Synod have agreed to respond “even if the alleged violation of Article
XIII of the Constitution is considered to be ‘public.’” In such case Matthew 18:15 is still
followed.
For further help, see Opinions 04-2401 (October, 2004) and 05-2422 (April, 2005) in their entirety.
Question 5: Does this point of the Bylaw [2.14.3 (c)] forbid any member of the Synod from publicly
rebuking another member for public sin such as false doctrine prior to i.) the rebuker
consulting with the appropriate district president (i.e., the consultation mentioned in Bylaw
2.14.3) and/or ii.) the process for expulsion which follows upon this consultation?
Opinion: The answer to question four applies.
Question 6: May a member of the Synod (member Alpha) be prohibited from bringing to the appropriate
district president a matter which could lead to another member’s (member Beta’s) expulsion
from the Synod on the grounds that member Alpha has previously publicly rebuked member
Beta for a public sin such as false doctrine?
Opinion: Bylaw section 2.14 and the related bylaws have no such prohibition.
Question 7: May a member of the Synod (member Gamma) be prohibited from publicly rebuking another
member of the Synod (member Delta) for a public sin such as false doctrine on the grounds
that member Gamma has not yet engaged in steps enumerated in Bylaw 2.14.3ff. such as a
face-to-face rebuke and/or communication with the appropriate District President?
Opinion: Bylaw section 2.14 and the related bylaws have no such prohibition. The answer to question
four applies.

121