LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — January 9-10, 1987, Page 8

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

1) Is it constitutional to use as charges the two statements "slightly reworded now" that initially
resulted from the July 1, 1986 meeting of the ad hoc committee?
2) Is it constitutional to "initiate a new proceedings" against me (Dr. Schmidt) as stated in the
November 26, 1986 letter without following the steps outlined in Bylaw 6.47 a and
following?
3) In light of Bylaw 6.47 e, is it necessary to obtain a formal opinion on this case from the
CTCR if a theological issue is involved?
Dr. Robert Preus, president of Concordia Theological Seminary, had also raised two questions:
1) Is it possible for the process as described in 6.47 a to be carried out simultaneously with the
procedures as described in 6.47 e, ff.?
2) In the light of the fact that the provisions of 6.47 a have been carried out previously, does a
refiling of the same charges by the same person, namely the Rev. Jack Cascione, require a
repetition of 6.47 a that "the president of the institution attempt to deal with it to the
satisfaction of all concerned," since this had been previously done.
In response to all the questions which had been raised, the Commission decided to answer as follows:
If the charges are different than originally constituted, the parties must go back to 6.47 a which
includes advice to communicate directly between the parties and proceed then accordingly under
each step thereafter. We would continue to call attention to the fact that the items contained in
6.47 must be adhered to specifically. In this regard we are in complete accord with the
Commission on Appeals who has also stated the same thing in their recent opinion.
Since the issue has been raised relative to 6.47 e, it is obvious that attached to the notification of
the hearing must be an opinion of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations relative to
the theological issue in question if that opinion is available or, if that is not available, a new
opinion on the theological issue in question.
Since the question has also been raised, we must point out that it would be impossible in
following these procedures on the step-by-step basis to have one procedure occur simultaneously
with other.
We reemphasize that all involved must continue to follow those provisions as set forth in Bylaw
6.47 a and from that point on. This avoids any controversy and avoids any possibility of a
problem in relation to appeal. We note again that, in fact, the Commission on Appeals has, in
essence, stated the same thing.
38. Suspension of Voting Membership (Ag. 1780) : In its previous meeting, the Commission on
Constitutional Matters had considered a situation in the congregation at Zion, Auburn, Washington,
where several members had been suspended from attending Holy Communion and had also been
suspended from voting membership. The Commission had pointed out that the constitution of the
congregation would not support that suspension from voting membership since the only requirement for
such membership was communicant membership and a certain age. The Commission had also been
provided with a summary of the procedures which had led up to this point together with several options
suggested by the district president which the congregation might follow in resolving this matter. The