LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 1, 1985, Page 6

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

is a matter of adjudication. Rev. Preufer is to be notified of the decision of the Commission, with a copy
to Attorney Marczewski.
107. Abstention: Because of a possible or perceived conflict of interest, the Secretary abstained from
voting on all matters relating to questions involving Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne.
108. False Doctrine, Proper Procedure (Ag. 1720, A,B): Dr. Alvin Schmidt had requested a ruling from
the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the proper procedure to be followed by himself, the
complainant, and the Board of Regents of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, in dealing with
a charge related to false doctrine. It was the contention of Dr. Schmidt that the complainant had not
addressed him personally regarding the charge before presenting it to the Board of Regents. The
Commission decided to respond as follows:
In response to your request contained in your letter of October 28 1984, to the Commission on
Constitutional Matters regarding an interpretation of 6.47, a, of the synodical Handbook, the
Commission finds the following:
6.47, a, requires the president or the Board of Regents to only advise the complainant to
communicate directly with the accused party. There is no requirement that, in fact, the
complainant must do so.
In your letter and attached correspondence, particularly your letter of 9/25/84, you have made a
quantum leap to interpret the section to require the complainant to contact you. The fact that he
did or did not follow this advice, especially in the light of Matthew 18, would obviously be of
interest to an adjudicative body regarding the merit of the charges or the motive therefor, but has
nothing to do with the language of 6.47, a, as presently stated.
The Commission regrets that it has not been possible to reach an amicable solution to this matter
and urges that such a solution be pursued, if at all possible.
109. Synod President's Action, Constitutionality (Ag. 1721): A request had been received for a ruling by
the Commission on Constitutional Matters regarding the constitutionality of the action of the President of
the Synod in relation to Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, following a request of the Board
for Professional Education Services for such action. The specific questions to be addressed were, "Did the
President of the Synod violate the constitutionally guaranteed rights and duties of the Board of Regents of
CTS
or those of the President of the CTS when he personally entered into the alleged, but never proven or
identified problems at CTS in accordance with Handbook 2.103, c?" and "Is the synodical President's
exercise of 2.103, c, applicable in such a case, where the Handbook does specifically recommend
directives for both the President of CTS and the Board of Regents of CTS for the handling of such alleged
problems or affairs of the seminary?" The Commission responded that the answer to the first question is
no, while the answer to the second question is yes. After further discussion, it decided to respond as
follows:
In the preface to the questions which you specifically asked a number of assertions are made to
which this body can neither comment nor investigate, it being neither an adjudicative or fact
finding body.
In answer to your two specific questions, the CCM rules as follows: 2.103, c, was designed to
cover an extreme or unique situation in which discretionary administrative action is required and
for which there is no specific directive of the Synod. You have raised the issue that 6.45 and 6.15