LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — November 18–19, 2016, Page 10

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

By adopting these significant Bylaw revisions in 2004, the Synod did not in any way comment on the
constitutionality of the practice that had been in place from 1956–1989, which the 1956 convention
determined was inherent in Article XI B 1–3.
The conclusion of CCM Op. 16-2791, that that the 1956–1989 provision providing the mechanism of
appeal to the President of the Synod in the case of inaction of district officials and enabling him to act was
an organic clarification in the bylaws of a power the Constitution already granted the President under
Constitution Article XI B 1–3, is consistent with and reflects the long-standing position of the Synod.
While the original 1847 constitution did not address the matter of suspension, the actions of a certain
Pastor Pöschke, one of the original members of the Synod, prompted President Walther to consult with
the St. Louis Pastor Conference and then suspend him from membership in the Synod prior to the 1849
convention. The 1849 Synod Convention concurred with President Walther’s action and remedied the
situation by adopting an amendment to the Constitution, authorizing the president of the Synod to
suspend a member until the next convention, which would then take action, either expelling from the
Synod or lifting the suspension. It was reported to the 1850 convention that this amendment had been
ratified by all the congregations of the Synod.
When the Synod divided into districts in 1854, virtually identical supervision wording was used for the
duties and authority of both the district presidents and the President of the Synod. Article VI E 1 of the
1854 constitution specifically placed the supervision of the doctrine and practice of synodical officers, all
pastors and teachers of the entire synod, the individual districts, the pastoral conferences and the
congregations of the Synod into the hands of the president of the Synod, who was charged, if at all
possible, to visit each. At the same time, the authority to temporarily suspend an individual member or a
congregation was given to the district presidents. The assumption seemed to be that the district presidents
were the agents of the President of the Synod, and would take care of it. In the event that the President of
the Synod became aware of a problem, he would generally refer the matter to the appropriate district
president for action. By the time of the publication of the first edition of the Synod Handbook in 1873, the
wording in the section on the duties of the Synod President had changed somewhat. Specific reference to
the Synod President’s direct supervision of all pastors, teachers, and congregations of the entire Synod
had been removed (1873 Handbook, pp. 21–22). However, it is clear that this change was not intended to
alter the supervision responsibility of the president of the Synod. Ultimate supervision for all those who
are a part of the Synod still remained with the President of the Synod.
The 1873 Handbook’s instructions state: “The Synod declares that, because the President of the Synod is
appointed inspector of the district presidents, the same right and power would be attached (to him) in
situations, where he is convinced that a district president erred in his handling of a case, so that in the
local congregation involved, at his own discretion, he could convince himself of the facts” (1873
Handbook, p. 89). The change in wording was adopted by the 1864 convention (1864 Proceedings, p. 4,
the proposal having been published in the August 15, 1863 Der Lutheraner). The reason for the change
was stated to be a result of the growth of the Synod, which made the former general visitation duties
impossible for the President of the Synod to carry out. What did not change, however, was that the
ultimate responsibility for supervision still lay with the President of the Synod, and, if he was convinced
that the district president had erred in his handling of a matter, the President of the Synod could go
directly to the individual member or the congregation. Thus the procedures the Synod adopted in 1956
simply reflect what had been the long-standing position of the Synod, and were in no way a novelty.
The research of the commission leading to Op. 16-2791, referenced only in part in the opinion, and the
further research reflected above fully support and in no way contradict the conclusions of Op. 16-2791.
Application of Bylaw sections 1.5.1.3, 1.5.2, and 1.5.7: In regard to other issues raised by the member of
Synod with regard to potential conflicts of interest, the CCM is well aware of the conflict of interest
provisions of the bylaws and of the responsibility incumbent upon the CCM to review a potential conflict
of interest. Bylaws recognize that conflicts of interest can occur, and place the responsibility on every
CCM Minutes – November 18–19, 2016 – Page 16