LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 12, 2017, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the entire period, that mechanism has initiated the same due process bylaw procedure that would have been
initiated by a district president.
The conclusion is that the conventions have not desired the inaction of a single district officer (who is not
elected by the whole Synod) to frustrate in his district—at least until the next Synod convention—the
ultimate exercise of ecclesiastical supervision, thereby depriving the congregations and workers of his
district of the application of Synod’s one standard for doctrine and practice (Const. Art. II, Bylaw section
1.6) and denying to them the furtherance of Synod’s objectives (Const. Art. III 1, 8, and 9). The Synod,
after all, “is not merely an advisory body in relation to a district, but establishes districts in order more
effectively to achieve its objectives and carry on its activities. A district is the Synod itself performing the
functions of the Synod. Resolutions of the Synod are binding upon the districts.” (Bylaws 4.1.1–4.1.1.1)
Op. 16-2791 calls for nothing new in calling for bylaws that allow an appeal for action beyond a district
president’s inaction on charges laid. Instead, Op. 16-2791, Res. 12-14, and the bylaws proposed thereunder
simply direct that appeal for action to the one constitutionally authorized to act on it—on behalf of the
whole Synod—as so clearly stated by the 1956 convention of the Synod: namely, the President of the Synod.
2. Scope of the Power of the President of the Synod under Op. 16-2791, Res. 12-14, and Bylaws Proposed
The request for reconsideration is posed as if Op. 16-2791 and the bylaws proposed to satisfy 2016 Res.
12-14 grant a blanket authority for the President of the Synod to exercise fully and immediately, himself,
that supervision assigned to district presidents in Const. Art. XII 7–8. Whether the President of the Synod
could be granted that identical authority under hypothetical bylaws is not presently the issue. Neither Op.
16-2791 nor the bylaws drafted, under 2016 Res. 12-14, to satisfy the constitutional requirements posed by
Op. 16-2791, give the President of the Synod that immediate and identical authority. What must be dealt
with is the actual case, in which the authority of the President of the Synod to take administrative action in
the case of a member under district supervision is being dealt with only under two important qualifiers:
•

Of present interest is the ability of the President of the Synod to initiate formal proceedings only in
a matter involving doctrine or practice. Const. Art. XI B 1–3 grants the President of the Synod
supervision over “doctrine [Lehre] 4 and administration [of office, Amtsverwaltung].” It does not
deal explicitly with life [Leben], which is mentioned along with doctrine [Lehre] and administration
of office [Amtsführung] as the “especial” charge of district presidents. Clearly, the standing
interpretation is that the President of the Synod has the authority to supervise the life, as well, of
those Synod officers and District Presidents subject to his direct supervision [cf. Bylaw Sections
2.15 and 2.17], and the commission sees no warrant to challenge this standing interpretation, as
“[a]ll officers of the districts have the same rights and duties as those outlined in this Constitution
for the officers of Synod but only insofar as these apply to the district and only within the
boundaries of their districts” (Const. Art. XII 6). Thus, if a district president supervises the life of
an individual member under his supervision, the Synod president, who has the same office, but
with respect to the Synod and not a particular district, has the self-same supervision over those
individuals he directly supervises. These are surely to be subject to the same standard of expulsion
(Const. Art. XIII and VI) as other members of the Synod, which includes offensive conduct and
blamelessness of life.
Nonetheless, neither Op. 16-2791 nor the bylaws proposed under Res. 12-14 (reviewed in Op. 172828) propose extending a backup supervision of the life of individual members under district
supervision to the President of the Synod—only a backup supervision of those matters explicitly
treated under Const. Art. XI B 1–3, namely, doctrine and administration of office (a.k.a. practice;
cf. Bylaws 1.10.8; 2.14.8; 2.15.8; 2.17.8). The argument, therefore, that because the President of

4

German included throughout is from the 1924 Handbuch, which is exactly parallel to the English of the 1924
Handbook, the first edition in English. The German is significant for reasons to become apparent later.

CCM Minutes – May 12, 2017 – Page 43