LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — December 14, 1989, Page 7

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

conventions of congregations were affected in such cases and what other implications, if anything there
were.
The Commission decided to respond with the following statements:
a) Congregations are required and expected to operate under an approved constitution and
bylaws.
b) When a congregation revises its bylaws, these must be approved by the District Board of
Directors upon recommendation of the District Constitution Committee (Bylaw 2.03).
c) Until such time as revisions are approved, a congregation is to operate under the constitution
and bylaws which were approved prior to the proposed revision.
d) Congregations which do not follow these procedures are operating contrary to the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, are subject to discipline, and may ultimately be
suspended or expelled if the violation is not corrected (Bylaw 2.21 ff.).
e) It is assumed that in all these matters, the congregation will be dealt with evangelically and
not legalistically in an effort to persuade it to make any corrections necessary so that its
governing documents will conform to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
17. Adjudication Publicity (Ag. 1879) : Rev. David Mahsman, director of News and Information for
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, had asked the Commission on Adjudication to provide him with a
copy of the appeal of Dr. Robert Preus in relation to the July 27, 1989, action of the Board of Regents of
Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, that he be honorably retired as seminary president. He had
received a response from the chairman of the commission, who stated that he could not honor the requests
citing paragraph 19, section f of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Commission on Appeals. Also
cited was Bylaw 8.5l,a,b and m in declining the request. It was the contention of Rev. Mahsman that
neither the bylaws or Rules of Procedure prohibited a synodical commission from providing an official
document, such as Dr. Preus's appeal, to him for reporting in the official periodicals of the Synod. He
stated that the Rules of Procedure, in his opinion, referred to the plaintiff and defendant in a case, not the
commission hearing the case. He indicated that it was his desire and intention to report factually and
objectively in the light of reports on the matter which had tended to circulate in the Synod's "grapevine."
His specific question to the Commission on Constitutional Matters was this: "Does paragraph 19, section
f of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Commission on Appeals or Synod Bylaw 8.51 preclude the
Commission on Adjudication from providing the Synod's Director of News and Information with a copy
of the formal appeal filed to the Commission on Adjudication by Dr. Robert Preus against the Board of
Regents, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, et.al.?"
The Commission had also received a communication from Rev. David Caspersen, chairman of the
synodical Commission on Adjudication. In it, he stated that he felt that the honoring of the requests would
be a violation of Article 111, 9, which states that one of the objectives of the Synod is to "provide
protection of Synod's congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church workers, in the performance of
their official duties and the maintenance of their rights." It was stated that the Commission on
Adjudication could not be carrying out the objective of the Synod in regard to defendants if the
commission itself was giving out for publication, the appeal in part or completely, before the complaint
against the defendants had been sustained or rejected by hearings before the Commission on
Adjudication. The Commission on Adjudication would not be protecting the good name of the defendants
by aiding the publication of the complaint against them before the commission had heard the facts,
listened to the pleadings of the parties, or rendered a judgment on the rightfulness of the complaint against