Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1985–1989 › Page 2

LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 5, 1988, Page 2

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

Source: LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters minutes, file copy

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the District Commission on Constitutional Matters by an application of the principles as set forth
in this opinion. Frankly, had this been done in the past, the great expenditure of time and
resources of all parties that has occurred here could have been avoided.
87. Doctrinal Supervision (Ag. 1827,A) : The Commission acknowledged receipt of a letter and report
from Dr. Bohlmann which outlined the sequence of events which had occurred in the supervision of
doctrine in a specific situation. The report was occasioned by the response of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters to questions addressed to it by the former president and vice president of the
Synod regarding proper procedures involved in doctrinal supervision.
88. President as Party to a Case (Ag. 1828) : The Commission had been requested to provide an
opinion on the meaning of the term "party to a case" in Bylaw 8.03 e and the status of the president of a
district as "complainant" if the district president brings a charge against an individual. Additional related
questions had also been posed. The Secretary had provided a response which was ratified by the
Commission. In the response, the Secretary had stated,
In terms of your specific question, I believe it is clear that a "complainant'' is a party to the case.
Further, if the president of the district initiates and brings the charge, he is the complainant if the
matter comes before the District Commission on Adjudication. As you know, the matter may not
come to the Commission on Adjudication since, if the president suspends the member, thesuspension results in removal unless the suspended member files a request within 15 days for
adjudication. If he files such a request, he is placed on restricted status.
If the matters is to be adjudicated, the president is not automatically disqualified. He merely
presents the matter to the District Commission for their adjudication.
It should be noted that the president of the district is not a member of the commission. If the
commission requires direction regarding procedure, it may request such direction from the
Commission on Appeals which has prepared rules of procedure which are intended to guide the
various commissions on adjudication. If a constitutional matter is involved, they may secure an
advisory opinion from the Commission on Constitutional Matters. If a theological matter is at
issue, they may secure an advisory opinion from the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations. This is made quite apparent in 1986 Bylaws 8.37 and 8.51 f. Though the latter refers to
the "request of either party" it is obvious, by virtue of the responsibilities of the various other
commissions, that they would be the groups from which a District Commission on Adjudication
would seek guidance, if necessary. Further, it should be noted that a proceeding is not pending
before a commission until it has been brought to them. Consequently, a president's action in
bringing the matter to a Commission on Adjudication would not involve a "proceeding pending
before a commission." Once it is before the commission, the President, if he is the complainant, is
not to communicate directly or indirectly "with any member of the commission concerning any
matter involved in the proceeding." As indicated above, the commission acts independently and is
to seek its guidance, if necessary, from other sources.
Bylaw 8.51 f points the "accused" to the sources and manner in which guidance and answers to
questions can be secured. Bylaw 8.51 j states that any party to the case may select as many as two
advisors. This would apply to both the "plaintiff" and the "defendant" who would seek counsel
from such sources. As to "pastoral care," that again would be a matter of choice. It would first
seem that a pastor might seek such pastoral care from his circuit counselor or a fellow circuit
pastor. It might even be possible to seek that from the district president just as a pastor continues
to provide pastoral care for a member of his congregation who may be under some form of