LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 1–2, 2016, Page 18

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Opinion: See the answers to questions 3 and 4 above.
Question 10: Can a district president demand a pastor’s resignation from his call, and then threaten
suspension if said pastor does not resign, without investigating the issue in any manner as is
required in Bylaw 4.4.5, or must the suspension be lifted and the proceedings canceled?
Opinion: Bylaw 4.4.5 does not in any manner require investigation of a matter. Bylaw 4.4.6 allows but
does not require a district president to arrange for an official visit or investigation “when a controversy
arises.” There is nothing to prevent a district president from requesting a pastor’s resignation from his call
when, in the opinion of the district president, he is no longer eligible to serve that call. Neither such a
request, nor the admonition that suspension and expulsion will follow if such a request is not acted upon,
invalidates the expulsion procedures of Bylaw sections 2.14 or 2.17.
Question 11: Can a district president, operating under Bylaw 2.14, first place a pastor on restricted status
admittedly without conducting any investigation to determine if there was a “substantial
basis” to warrant such action, and then proceed with Bylaw 2.14 in order to terminate
membership in the Synod, without ensuring that the accuser has met face- to-face with the
accused (cf. Bylaw 2.14.3c), without talking to that pastor about the accusations, and
without any investigation into the matter, even stating by email that he hoped an
investigation would not be necessary, or must the suspension be lifted and the proceedings
canceled?
Opinion: The district president may restrict a member “if information with respect to such member
provides a substantial basis to conclude that such member…has engaged in conduct which could lead to
expulsion from the Synod under Article XIII of the Constitution…” (Bylaw 2.13.2.1, emphasis added).
The purpose of restricted status is to allow the district president time to substantiate allegations. If the
ongoing or subsequent thorough investigation reveals that such allegations are sustained, then the
appropriate status is suspended, not restricted.
In the question, it is unclear what is meant by the district president’s “proceeding with Bylaw 2.14.” If
Bylaw 2.14 applies, the face-to-face meeting and other stipulations of Bylaw 2.14.3 must have been
satisfied (Bylaw 2.14.4 [a]) before the district president commences the actions of Bylaw 2.14.5, etc. He
is to provide the Hearing Panel, through the Secretary of Synod, with a written memorandum describing
the manner in which there was compliance with Matthew 18, etc. (Bylaw 2.14.7.7). The district
president’s compliance or non-compliance with the procedure of Bylaw 2.14 (if applicable), and whether
any such might have irreparably denied due process, is a matter for the hearing panel and possible
subsequent panels to consider in reaching a decision (see 2.14 SOPM). It should be noted that a matter
initially addressed by Bylaw section 2.14 may subsequently become Bylaw section 2.17 as a result of
additional investigation.
Question 12: Can a district president, operating under Bylaw 2.17, commence action against a pastor
without (1) providing evangelical care (cf. Bylaw 2.17.3 [c] [2]) informing the accused of
the accusation at the earliest appropriate time (cf. Bylaw 2.17.4 [b]), or must the suspension
be lifted and the proceedings canceled?
Opinion: These matters concern the district president’s having followed the Bylaw section 2.17 process
and are therefore considerations for the hearing panel and possible subsequent panels in their reaching a
decision. It should be noted that the provision of evangelical care is part of the consultation phase and is
intended to be directed to the victim rather than the accused. “The issue to be decided by a Hearing Panel
shall be whether the suspension of the accused member of the Synod will be upheld, including whether
the ecclesiastical supervisor followed prescribed procedures and whether the burden of proof for

CCM Minutes – April 1–2, 2016 – Page 132