LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — April 3, 1997, Page 4

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

3. Does a pastor of the Missouri Synod freely obligate himself to the doctrinal position of Synod and, if
so, does this include Synod's position on unionism? Does the same hold true for district presidents?
4. Is a pastor or district president free to participate in unionistic practices, even if driven by compulsion
of conscience, without fear of consequence; that is to say, is "conscience" sufficient warrant for
violating synodical doctrine/practice?
5. Is clergy participation in a marriage ceremony wherein clergy from communions not in fellowship
officiate/co-officiate considered "unionism" under the definition you have given above?
6. Would participation in unionistic services by clergy of the LCMS be considered a "failure of office?"
7. Is co-officiating with clergy from communions with which we are not in fellowship considered a
violation of Article VI of the Handbook? If so, how?
8. Should a district president be "charged" with public sin and violation of Article VI, would he be
charged in his own district as a district official, or would charges be sent to Synod since he serves
as a synodical official?
9. Would being in the process of reconciliation (Art. VIII) suspend any action that Synod in convention
might choose to take against one practicing unionism?
10. Should it be necessary, what are the proper procedures for leveling charges against a clergyman of
Synod? Is there, for lack of better term, a standard format?
The Secretary had indicated that it appeared that all questions except 8, 9, and 10 were within the province
of the CTCR and are outside of the purview of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. He also
suggested that the following response might be made to questions 8, 9, and 10.
Response to question 8 could depend on whether this issue is one which is believed to fall within
Chapter II under which a member could be restricted or suspended, or whether it is a matter to be
considered under Chapter VIII as simply a "dispute, disagreement, or offense(s) which arise among
members of the body of Christ." In any case, Bylaw 2.27, a, 1, provides the necessary guidance with
respect to matters involving the District President if restriction or suspension is contemplated.
With respect to question 9, Bylaw 3.19, c, provides some direction. While the bylaw speaks only of
cases involving members suspended or expelled, legal advice might well be that action by a convention
regarding a member who is involved in the reconciliation process could subject the Synod to "civil
action for libel or slander." Action by a convention could also be considered to be in violation of Bylaw
8.21, e.
There is no standard format for leveling charges against a clergyman of the Synod. The proper
procedures are reflected in the response to question 8 above.
It should be understood that the responses provided above always assume that the guidelines of
Matthew 18:15-16 have been followed.
In reviewing this response, the Commission concluded that it appeared that there were other matters that
needed to be considered. It noted that bringing charges under Bylaw 2.27 seemed to be the preferred way.
Reference was also made to Article XI, B, 1, d, which indicates that the President has the supervision
regarding the doctrine and administration of all district presidents.