LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 27–August 3, 2023, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

(H) Proposed Substitute for Res. 7-03, “To Work Toward Resolution with Concordia University Texas”
In its review of Substitute Resolution 7-03 (2023 Today’s Business, 3:395) the Commission on
Constitutional Matters notes that while agencies and corporate Synod are eligible for the Dispute Resolution
Process, such a dispute cannot involve the interpretation and of the Constitution and Bylaws, since the
Synod in convention has assigned this responsibility to the Commission on Constitutional Matters. As stated
in Op. 23-3006:
Question 6:

Assuming a university of the Synod and its board of regents are eligible parties to
the Dispute Resolution process set forth in Synod Bylaw 1.10, does the Dispute
Resolution process apply to a dispute between the Synod (or its President or
Board of Directors) and a board of regents regarding that board of regents
unilaterally amending or modifying its governance documents, and regarding
whether the action of the board of regents is within the authority granted to it
under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod?

Opinion:
Essentially, no. The fundamental material question of whether a Synod university
has the authority to unilaterally change its governance from that prescribed in the Constitution,
Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod, since such a question pertains fundamentally not to the
presenting fact situation but to the interpretation and meaning of the Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod, is outside of the authority of the Dispute Resolution Process to arbitrate
or adjudicate, as stated in the Bylaws. Authority to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, and
Resolutions of the Synod is specifically given by the Bylaws only to the Synod’s Commission on
Constitutional Matters (Bylaw 3.9.2.2). Any Dispute Resolution Process is subject in all its aspects
to “Holy Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod”
(Bylaw 1.10.18). As to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, opinions of this commission are
finally dispositive of any questions as to their interpretation that arise during a Dispute Resolution
Process (Bylaw 1.10.18 [h], [h][1]). While the question of whether a board of regents has the
authority described is thus finally resolved by this commission’s interpretation of the Constitution
and Bylaws in the negative, this is not to foreclose the applicability of the Dispute Resolution
Process to disagreements or disputes, related to or arising out of this action, as may apply to the
board of regents as a whole or to individual regents as “members of congregations of the Synod
elected or appointed to positions with…an agency of the Synod” (Bylaw 1.10.2 [5]).
Any proposal to submit a dispute regarding matters of governance either to the Synod’s Dispute Resolution
Process or an external mediator is out of order.
The Commission notes, as it did in Op. 23-3006, that the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process could be
available to the various individuals involved in the dispute should they desire to seek personal
reconciliation, and is the exclusive remedy (Bylaw 1.10.1.1):
1.10.1.1

The Holy Scriptures (1 Cor. 6:1–7) urge Christians to settle their differences by laying them before
the “members of the brotherhood.” Therefore, the Synod in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 6 calls upon
all parties to a disagreement, accusation, controversy, or disciplinary action to rely exclusively and
fully on the Synod’s system of reconciliation and conflict resolution. The use of the Synod’s conflict
resolution procedures shall be the exclusive and final remedy for those who are in dispute. Fitness
for ministry and other theological matters must be determined within the church. Parties to disputes
are urged, in matters of a doctrinal nature, to follow the procedures as outlined in Bylaw section 1.8.

The parties here would be required to use the 1.10 Dispute Resolution Process, which includes both the
formal component and the informal component. If the parties desire to use a mediator in that informal
process, they would be required to use a Synod reconciler (Bylaw 1.10.5) rather than an external mediator.
Any use of an external process or mediator is precluded by Bylaw 1.10.
Thomas J. Deadrick, Assistant Secretary
CCM Minutes – July 27–August 3, 2023 – Page 158