LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — September 26-27, 1986, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Any suggestion that these bylaw requirements of notice and timing may be disregarded as
procedural technicalities betrays a most serious and worrisome misapprehension of the
binding effect of the bylaws upon all of us. This Commission is not at liberty to disregard
the clear language of this or any other duly adopted bylaw provision.
2. The foregoing also answers your question whether the charges should be heard by an ad hoc
committee or by the seminary's faculty hearing committee. Bylaw 6.47(e) specifically directs
the appointment of an ad hoc committee and provides for its composition.
3. You also inquired whether it was constitutionally permissible to reinstitute an earlier inquiry
based upon the same, original charges. The answer is yes. There has been no determination of
the charges against you. The Constitution and Bylaws prescribe no period of limitation within
which proceedings must be brought, nor is there any provision which would foreclose the
institution of proceedings previously withdrawn or defeated due to procedural defect.
We decline to take up your related question as to the number of times a matter might
theoretically be dropped and reinstituted. The Commission does not, as a general rule,
entertain hypothetical questions. This is especially true where the matter is one that is
likely to depend heavily upon the particular facts of an individual case.
3. Suspension of Voting Membership (Ag. 1780) : A congregation in the Northwest District had
suspended several of its members from Holy Communion and also had suspended them from holding
voting membership in the congregation. The District President indicated that the congregation had
specifically said that these members were not excommunicated but were simply suspended in these two
ways. In response, the Secretary had written to the District President indicating that the suspension from
voting membership would not be constitutional if those under suspension from receiving Holy
Communion were still considered communicant members. The only requirement stated in the
Constitution for voting membership was that voting members must be communicant members over the
age of 18. The Commission ratified the response which had been given.
4. Faculty Controversies (Ag. 1784) : Dr. Robert Preus had written to the Commission asking it to tell
him if there was any way under the Constitution of the Synod for him to be reconciled with faculty
members who maintained, in spite of his denial, that he was guilty of the sin of lying or if the only way
the Board of Regents could intervene in the matter and settle it would be to make charges against such
faculty members and colleagues.
In response, after consultation with the Commission Chairman, the Secretary had written to Dr. Preus
stating that all efforts to resolve differences in an evangelical manner are to be applauded. It was further
suggested that an appeal might be made to select an objective arbitrator, perhaps through appeal to the
President of the Synod, for such a person who would be acceptable to all parties concerned and who
might be helpful in arriving at some solution to the differences. Failing that, it might be that the only,,, o
deal with the issues would be through appeal to other adjudication procedures.
The Commission ratified the response which had been given and noted that since there had been no
further contact on the part of Dr. Preus, it was assumed that he was apparently satisfied and no further
response was required. Dr. Preus is to be notified that the Commission has ratified the response and
suggested that it be pointed out that since the attempt is being made to settle the issue under Bylaw 6.47,
the Commission would emphasize the first paragraph of 6.47 a which calls for direct communication with
the complainant for the purpose of attempting to find a peaceful and amicable resolution to charges which
have been made.