LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 2–3, 2018, Page 13

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Paul of being domineering for insisting that women can’t be pastors (1 Timothy 2; 1
Corinthians 14). Do district presidents owe it to the accused to provide clear examples of
their domineering rather than unexplained and unsubstantiated accusations? Can
domineering be established by only one action or does it require several consistent actions
that are established by one or two witnesses as per 1 Timothy 5:19 (and whose charges
agree, unlike the charges against Christ, Mark 14:56–59)?
Opinion:
Bylaw 2.13.2 gives the district president permission to place a member on restricted status
when the subjective and objective information before the district president provides in the eyes of the district
president a substantial basis to conclude that the member fits into a category described in 2.13.2.1 (a), (b),
or (c). Domineering behavior certainly may be an aspect or a part of the information before the district
president.
The matter of whether or not certain behavior is “domineering” requires a finding of fact, which is not the
charge which the bylaws give to the commission. Should the restricted status be appealed, that would be a
decision made by the panel.
Question 5:

If a district president cannot provide multiple and detailed examples of domineering is
there really a substantial basis for the continuation of a member’s restricted status? If a
district president doesn’t explain such charges or lay them out, or give a hearing to both
sides at the same time but rather chooses one side, is he being domineering? If not, then,
this is a good example for other pastors to follow in their own congregations and not
something a pastor can be removed or restricted from doing, correct?

Opinion:
As stated previously, belligerence or domineering or multiple examples of each may be a
piece or pieces of the information available to the district president from which the district president will
determine if the member’s actions do or do not fit into 2.13.2.1(a), (b), or (c). In all the district president’s
actions he is to follow the Synod’s Handbook as supplemented by the relevant Standard Operating
Procedures Manual and policies of the Council of Presidents. As to the last two questions, these cannot be
answered by the commission because they do not involve an interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws
of the Synod.
Question 6:

If domineering is easy to establish, by taking the word of the congregation without citing
clear examples, and it is also a cause for removal or restricted status, then how are churches
to deal with a domineering district president? Is the process essentially the same as it is for
dealing with a pastor?

Opinion:
If a congregation believes a district president has committed an offense that warrants his
expulsion from Synod, the congregation has the right to consult with the President of Synod in accordance
with Bylaw 2.15.3. The remainder of 2.15 specifies the process.
Question 7:

Can a man be said to be domineering or belligerent to authority if he resigns his office,
especially if he does so at the request of the district president?

Opinion:
Because it does not involve an interpretation of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod,
the commission cannot answer this question.
Question 8:

In Bylaw 2.13.2.3, “an individual member of the Synod” is to be notified “in writing as to
the specific reasons for having been placed on restricted status.” If the reason for being put
on restricted status is a subjective measure such as belligerence or domineering, is it
sufficient for a district president to note in writing that examples have been provided to
him to conclude such or is the district president required to spell out the specific examples?
If specific examples do not have to be provided, how is the spirit of Bylaw 2.12.2.4 being
fulfilled where the district president is called to “minister to that member” with regard to
their “spiritual well-being” and work “to resolve those matters which led to the imposition
CCM Minutes – February 2, 2018 – Page 101