LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 20, 2016, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

service of pastors, professors, or teachers” (1956 Proceedings, p. 451), 1989 Res. 5-08A did not address
the constitutionality of the change from President to Praesidium of the Synod. The constitutionality of this
change, therefore, is not settled simply by its adoption as a bylaw. Since the question has now been
raised, the following response is given.
Ecclesiastical supervision is covered in the Constitution’s Articles XI B 1–3 and XII 6–8, which confer
supervisory power first upon the President of Synod, who is to “conscientiously use all means at his
command to promote and maintain unity of doctrine and practice in all the districts of the Synod,” and
then upon the district presidents, who shall “especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and
administration of office of ordained and commissioned ministers of their district…” One element entailed
in that ecclesiastical supervision is the authority to suspend a member of the Synod, which begins the
formal process that could lead to expulsion from the Synod (Constitution Art. XIII 1–2).
The term Praesidium does not occur in the Constitution of the Synod. Article XI C lists the duties of the
vice-presidents: “The vice-presidents shall upon request of the President represent him in all his
functions.” The Constitution does not assign ecclesiastical supervision to the office of vice-president or to
the Praesidium as a whole, but to the President and the district presidents (Constitution Art. XI B 1–3; XII
6–8). While the Constitution provides that in exceptional situations a President could request a vicepresident to represent him in this function (Constitution Art. XI C 1), even in this case, final
accountability remains with the President (Bylaw 3.3.1.3 [k]). Bylaws implementing the process of
expulsion (under Constitution Art. XIII 2) also make allowance, should a President be disqualified in
some manner from dealing with a case, for his role to be carried out by a vice-president (Bylaws 2.14.4.1,
2.15.4.1, 2.17.4.1). In these cases an exceptional circumstance renders the President unable to act (or to
act without partiality or the appearance thereof), so the Bylaws provide a mechanism for effecting the
necessary procedure, usually performed by a president, through a vice-president.
Even with such allowances made, the constitutional case for assigning the decision to initiate proceedings
in the case of district inaction to the Praesidium (including the vice-presidents) cannot be the same as that
made from Constitution Art. XI B 1–3 above for assigning the decision to the President himself—for the
simple reason that Const. Art. XI B 1–3 does not apply to the Praesidium but to the President alone.
The constitutionality of the provision as enacted between 1989 and 2004, allowing an accuser to appeal to
the Praesidium, was accepted when it was enacted—although the record contains no constitutional
argument in favor. It was also reviewed by the Commission on Constitutional Matters in its Opinion 012242 (Jan. 11, 2002), which dealt with a case seeking to expel a district president, in which the
President’s decision not to initiate proceedings was appealed to the Praesidium. The question is narrow,
but the commission’s approach is informative. The request asked (in part): “Since both the Constitution
and Bylaws clearly state that the President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all District
Presidents and of all officers of the Synod, including the Vice-Presidents, under what constitutional
authority would the Synodical Vice-Presidents be charged with the responsibility of determining the
continuation of the roster status of a District President under Bylaw 2.27?”
The Commission on Constitutional Matters responded as follows:
The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of District Presidents by reason
of Article XI B of the Constitution. However, ecclesiastical supervision does not include
the responsibility of determining the continuation of the roster status of a District
President. That matter is covered by Article XIII 2 which provides: “Expulsion shall be
executed only after following such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the
Synod.” Bylaws 2.27 and 8.09 establish the steps to be followed to expel a member from
the Synod. Under these Bylaws the President can either decline to seek the expulsion of a
District President as a member of the Synod, or pursue such expulsion by following the
procedure set forth in Bylaw 2.27 c. If he does pursue such expulsion, the decision to

CCM Minutes – June 20, 2016 – Page 141