LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 10–11, 2015, Page 16

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

•
•

•
•
•

Article II Section 7: The first paragraph’s restatement of Synod Bylaw 3.6.6.1 should include the
provision “for prior approval of all initial full-time theology appointments to college/university
faculties.”
Article II Section 7: The beginning of the second paragraph should include mention of the
Bylaws of the Synod, so as to read: “The board of directors shall have the powers and duties in
the management of Concordia University System as are granted by statute, by law, and by the
Articles of Incorporation, by the Bylaws of the Synod, and as shall be reasonably necessary….”
Article II Section 7: The added sentence/paragraph at the end of the section assumedly should be
labeled “(l).”
Article III Section 2: This delegation is subject to the requirements of Synod Bylaw 1.5.3.2.
Article V: The added sentence to the first paragraph must be changed to read: “No amendment to
these Bylaws may contradict the Constitution, and Bylaws, and resolutions of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod,….”

103. Response to Hearing Panel re Restricted/Suspended Status (15-2764)
With a March 28, 2015 email, the hearing facilitator of a Bylaw section 2.14 expulsion case forwarded
two questions from the Hearing Panel in the case, as requested by one of the parties. The commission
responded to the questions as follows.
Question 1: Can a district president, under the provisions of Bylaw 2.14, change the status of a rostered
worker from” active” to “suspended” without first placing the worker on “restricted” roster
status?
Opinion: The answer to this question is “yes,” a district president can change the status of a rostered
worker from “active” to “suspended” without first placing the worker on “restricted” status.
Restricted status, governed by Bylaws 2.13.2–2.13.2.4, allows a district president to limit the activities of
an individual member of the Synod to those ministry functions, if any, which the member holds at the
inception of the restricted status. Suspended status, according to Bylaw 2.13.4, is the status that the
member will hold when formal proceedings have been commenced which may lead to expulsion of the
member from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution. By stating, “If such member was on
restricted status at the commencement of formal proceedings, the restricted status shall become suspended
status,” Bylaw 2.13.4 allows that not all cases of suspended status must be preceded by restricted status.
This interpretation was previously articulated by the commission in its May, 2004 Opinion 02-2383,
which states in its final paragraph,
As stated in the commission’s earlier opinion, restricted status and suspended status are two different actions.
Restricted status is imposed when a district president has information which may cause him to conclude that
certain conditions exist in a church worker’s life that are of serious concern or may lead to serious
consequences, the imposition of which status results in ineligibility to perform certain functions of ministry and
to accept a call to any other position of service in the Synod (Bylaw 2.23 b). Suspended status results when
formal proceedings have been commenced against a member of the Synod, individual or congregation, that may
lead to expulsion from the Synod, during which status the activities of the member in question are severely
limited (Bylaw 2.25 c). While restricted status may lead to suspended status in the case of individual members
(Bylaw 2.25 a), suspended status is not dependent upon the member in question first being placed upon
restricted status [emphasis added], nor is it influenced by success or failure in petitioning for the removal of
restricted status…. [Note: Bylaw references are no longer accurate.]

Question 2: Can a district president, under the provisions of Bylaws 2.14.3 (c) and 2.14.4 (b) change the
status of a rostered worker from “active” to “suspended” while the process of Matthew 18
imbedded in those bylaws is still actively being carried out among the parties involved?
CCM Minutes – April 10–11, 2015 – Page 78