Collection › LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1990–1994 › Page 8

LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — October 16, 1993, Page 8

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9

Source: LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters minutes, file copy

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

7.

The district president shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and
administration of office of the pastors and teachers of their district and acquaint themselves with the
religious conditions of the congregations of their district. To this end they shall visit and, according as
they deem it necessary, hold investigations in the congregations. Their assistants in this work are the
circuit counselors, who therefore shall regularly make their reports to the district president.

7.

District presidents are empowered to suspend from membership pastors, professors, and teachers
for persistently adhering to false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in
accordance with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod.

7.

Furthermore, the district presidents shall
1.

See to it that all resolutions of the Synod which concern the districts are made known to the
districts and are carried out by them;

1.

Submit an annual report of their administration to the President of the Synod and, in general,
permit him to obtain all necessary insight into their official activities as district presidents.

Bylaws 3.101 b and 3.03 a, 4.73 and 4.75 are consistent with these constitutional provisions and that polity
has been consistently followed.
While the President of the Synod is not called upon to advise and counsel individuals and congregations or
to supervise them, he is authorized to supervise the district presidents in carrying out their responsibilities.
If they do not do so and if admonition is not effective, he may report this matter to the Synod and may even
be authorized by special action of the Synod to remove those who fail to heed his admonition.
In light of the above, "When the President of a District is properly [Emphasis added), dealing with a pastor
according to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod [Emphasis added] the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Synod do not allow the congregation, the pastor, or the office of the synodical President to circumvent
the office of the District President and deal directly with that pastor and the conflicted congregation.
The Commission, however, calls attention to Bylaw 2.27 b which allows for a complaint to be brought to
the praesidium if there is a call for suspension of a member and if the district president declines to suspend
the member or fails to act within 90 days after the receipt of the written complaint.
A copy of this opinion was also shared with the President of the Synod.
61. Application of Dispute Resolution Process (Ag. 1964, 1965A-B) : At its meeting in May, 1993, the
Board of Directors had asked the Commission on Constitutional Matters to review the applicability of the
new Dispute Resolution Process to differences of opinion which arose regarding the adoption of Res. 4-06A
at the synodical convention which limited financial disclosure and Missouri Not-for-Profit Corporation law
which also deals with financial disclosure. The question was asked whether this bylaw negates the
requirement and members of the Synod are to use the Dispute Resolution Process as the "exclusive and
final remedy for those who are in dispute?" - Preamble to Chapter VIII. Related questions had been
received from the Chairman of the Task Force on Finances which had been appointed by the synodical
President and a pastor who asked regarding the matter of membership in the Synod, particularly corporate
membership. Because legal counsel had also been asked to respond to portions of this question, Leonard
Pranschke, legal counsel for the Synod, was present and joined in the discussion with the Commission on
Constitutional Matters.
As stated, the question which required a response from legal counsel was, "Does 4-06A take precedence
over Missouri Not-for-Profit Corporate law in responding to requests from congregations to inspect