LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 20, 2016, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

WHEREAS, It is necessary to clarify Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3, concerning the powers of the
President if District officers fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for service of
pastors, professors, or teachers; therefore be it Resolved, That Section 5.23 be amended to
read as follows… (1956 Proceedings, p. 451)
The provision in question, specifically mentioning the service of pastors, professors, and teachers, was
thus adopted by the Synod in convention explicitly as a clarification of the ecclesiastical supervisory
power of the President of the Synod when district officers fail to act. This power is granted in
Constitution Art. XI B 1–3, the text of which remains today as it was in 1956. iii
This provision was proposed through the Committee on Constitutional Matters, which was charged
essentially as is today’s commission, to “examine all reports, overtures, and resolutions to the Synod
asking for amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod or which in any manner affect the
Constitution and Bylaws, to determine their agreement in content and language with the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2.1, cf. similar 1956 Bylaw 2.113 [b]). The committee was also
responsible to “interpret the Constitution and By-Laws in cases of controversy” (1956 Bylaw 2.113 [e],
cf. 2013 Bylaw 3.9.2), which it had been doing on this very topic for at least four years.iv The 1956
understanding of the Committee on Constitutional Matters was clearly that the provision in question
simply elaborated in the Bylaws a constitutional power of the President of the Synod.
A Committee (or Commission) on Constitutional Matters, of course, was and is not the final interpreter of
Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions. The final interpreter is the Synod in convention, and
where the Synod in convention has acted to interpret the Constitution, especially where it has acted
explicitly and with substantive rationale, those aspects stand thus interpreted.v Here, by adopting 1956
Res. 6-11, the Synod in convention explicitly and authoritatively interpreted the Constitution, even
including a constitutional rationale both in the text of the resolution and in the resultant bylaw: that the
President could initiate proceedings in the case of district officers’ failure to act “by virtue of the power
given him in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3)” (1956 Handbook, sec. 5.23, n.p.). Indeed, the bylaw
language adopted was with the express purpose “to clarify Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3, concerning the powers of
the President if District officers fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for service of pastors,
professors, or teachers” (1956 Proceedings, p. 451).
The convention has therefore spoken using its authority as final interpreter of the Synod’s Constitution.
The 1956–1989 provision for the initiation of expulsion proceedings by the Synod President, should
district officials fail to act, was constitutional. It elaborated a “procedure as shall be set forth in the
Bylaws of Synod” (2013 Constitution Art. XIII 2) for the exercise of “power given [the Synod President]
in the Constitution (Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3),” putting “at [the President’s] command” a means “to promote
and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod” (Constitution Art. XI B 3).
Although no similar provision exists in the Synod’s 2013 Bylaws, if such a provision were to be adopted,
the constitutional interpretation adopted by the 1956 convention would apply. vi
2. Constitutionality of the 1989–2004 provision for the initiation of expulsion proceedings by the
Praesidium, should the district president fail to act.
1989 Res. 5-08A amended Bylaw 2.27 [f], making the Praesidium of the Synod instead of the President
of the Synod the recipient of a formal complaint in the event that a district president declined to suspend
an accused member or failed to act in 90 days. No rationale was given for the change from President to
Praesidium, either in the resolution (Proceedings, pp. 130–131) or in the Commission on Structure’s late
overture L5-85, which seems to have prompted the convention action. Its single whereas paragraph read
simply, “certain of the present Bylaws relative to commencing an action to terminate congregational or
individual membership are ambiguous and confusing” (id., p. 174).
Unlike 1956 Res. 6-11, which stated that the resolution was “necessary to clarify Article XI, B, 1, 2, 3,
concerning the powers of the President if District officers fail to act in cases involving ineligibility for

CCM Minutes – June 20, 2016 – Page 140