LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — June 10, 1995, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Synod is required to honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod. These have again and again urged
congregations to follow the position reflected in a Commission on Constitutional Matters ruling
regarding positions to be limited to males. It should also be noted that this ruling of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters has never been overturned by a convention.
During discussion of this matter, the Commission noted that if the Constitution and Bylaws of a
congregation included something which was not in keeping with the Constitution, Bylaws, or resolutions of
the Synod, even though that Constitution and Bylaws had been previously approved by a District
Constitution Committee, if something was now identified which was contrary to the Constitution, Bylaws,
and resolutions of the Synod, the congregation could be required to make necessary changes to bring its
documents into conformity with those synodical documents and positions.
Because the matter had not been directly referred to the Commission for an opinion, the Commission
decided to defer any further reply on this matter.
130. Meaning of "Failure to Act" - Bylaw 2.27 (Ag. 2009) : A district president had addressed the
Commission with the following request for an opinion:
What is the specific meaning of the term "fails to act within 90 days"?
If the District President begins the process of thoroughly investigating whether the allegations can be
substantiated and of requiring compliance with Matthew 18:15-16, as required by Bylaw 2.27a.1, and
2., within the 90-day period of time, does that process constitute fulfillment of Bylaw 2.27b., even
though the actual decision to restrict or suspend comes after the 90-day period has elapsed?
In responding to this question, the Commission decided to reply as follows:
The Commission believes that a response to the question is difficult to provide without having a context
in which to address the question. It could better be addressed if the question had been stated in an
abstract manner, citing actions which a district president might take. The Commission is also of the
opinion that if the question relates to a case which is in process, questions such as that which have been
forwarded should be presented by a Dispute Resolution Panel, assuming that that panel has been
constituted.
In view of the above, the Commission is not rendering an opinion on the specific question addressed
without benefit of the context and/or specific actions such as those identified above available to it. It
did, nevertheless, in discussion note that suspension is not an independent act. It is a consequence of an
investigation conducted by the district president to determine whether a basis for suspension exists.
Obviously, the matter involves a question of whether the district president has proceeded under Bylaw
2.27, a, 1 and 2.
Ultimately, the question of compliance with the requirements of 2.27, b, is a jurisdictional matter which
involves facts to be determined by a Dispute Resolution Panel. Furthermore, if a person requests a
'Dispute Resolution Panel, the Commission concludes that he waives all objections to continuation of
the process.
The Commission wishes to once again reiterate its position that if the question posed relates to a
specific matter under dispute which is in the process of dispute resolution as identified in Chapter VIII
of the Handbook, requests for an opinion on a constitutional or bylaw issue are to be forwarded through
the Dispute Resolution Panel if such has been constituted.