LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 9-10, 1990, Page 14

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

have no precedential force or value. To the extent that a decision is based on an interpretation
of the constitution or bylaw which conflicts with a prior interpretation of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters, it is a nullity.
By like note to the extent that it conflicts with an adopted doctrinal position of the Synod, it is
likewise a nullity.
12. Question: Who determines if dimensions of decisions of the Commission on Appeals go beyond
the duties or responsibilities explicitly assigned to the Commission by the Synod? Is it proper
under those circumstances for the President of the Synod or for some other synodical entity to
take executive action to render such dimensions of decisions nonbinding?
Response: The response to these questions is also embedded in other responses given to
previous questions, particularly those given questions 6 and 10. It is proper to observe that the
Commission on Constitutional Matters and all other boards and Commissions of the Synod
are subject to the same limitations and remedies.
13. Question: Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Commission on Appeals is limited to "appeals of
decisions of commissions on adjudication" (Bylaw 8.39), may the Commission on Appeals
introduce new factors that were not considered germane by the Commission on Adjudication?
May the Commission on Appeals reverse the decision of a Commission on Adjudication without
demonstrating that the Commission on Adjudication was in error?
Response: The Commission has also included a response to this question in its response to
previous questions. The Commission on Appeals may not introduce new facts or make its
decision on the basis of them if the introduction of such facts pertain to a charge not
considered by the Commission on Adjudication. In overturning a decision of the Commission
on Adjudication, the Commission on Appeals is obligated to explain on the basis of
established evidence why the Commission on Adjudication was in error.
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
ADOPTED MARCH 14, 1990
EDITED IN FINAL FORM-MARCH 19, 1990

31. Use of Adjudicatory Process for Reinstatement (Ag. 1885,a) : President Edwin Suelflow of the
South Wisconsin District requested an opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters on the
following:
A retired, ordained minister had "member emeritus" status under section 2.17 of the Bylaws.
Thereafter, he terminated his communicant membership status in an LCMS member congregation.
His District President subsequently advised him that he no longer qualified as a "member emeritus"
under section 2.17 of the Bylaws, and thus he no longer is a member of LCMS. The question is this:
in order to reverse the decision of the District President and regain emeritus status, may the retired
clergyman utilize the synodical adjudicatory system claiming that his removal by the District
President was improper under the circumstances? Or is the retired clergyman restricted to the
procedures set forth in section 2.31 and 2.33 of the Bylaws?
The Commission was aware of the fact that in the matter referred to above, the District Commission on
Adjudication had sustained the action of the District President and that decision had been overturned by
the Commission on Appeals. The Commission had also received a copy of a letter to the pastor involved