LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 18, 1998, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

143. Procedures for Charges (Ag. 2095): The same pastor who had requested an opinion of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters with regard to the procedures of the Commission on Doctrinal
Review also addressed the following questions to the Commission:
1. When the complainants and I were informed on December 11, 1997 that the facts do not form a basis
for my expulsion and that the Praesidium had decided not to proceed, does not the Bylaw provision
that this "shall terminate the matter" (Bylaw 2.27.b) mean that I have been cleared of all charges of
false doctrine pending against me as filed by my accusers with President Seitz and the Praesidium?
2. If there should be further charges against me in the future, would not such charges have to be received
and handled as new charges, based on new documentation, and handled under the provisions of
Matthew 18 and Bylaw 2.27.a?
3. If certain statements in the Praesidium's December 11, 1997 letter (as mentioned above and identified
in my December 20, 1997 letter to the Praesidium) are to be understood as accusations by the
Praesidium that I do in fact teach false doctrine, would not such accusations constitute new charges
of false doctrine against me, which the Praesidium would have to present on the basis of Matthew
18 and Bylaw 2.27.a?
4. Would it be a violation of Bylaw 2.27.b for the Praesidium, based on the admonition issued "pursuant
to Article XIII of Synod's Constitution," to later reverse itself and expel me from the Synod without
new charges presented on the basis of Matthew 18 and Bylaw 2.27.a?
5. Although I willingly accept the fraternal admonition and encouragement of my fellow pastors
(including the LCMS Praesidium), since the synodical bylaws clearly place me under the doctrinal
supervision of my District President, do the synodical bylaws or other official synodical statements
assign or allow the synodical Praesidium to exercise any direct supervisory responsibility,
authority, or function over me and my ministry?
In responding to these questions, the Commission stated that
On January 9, 1998, the Secretary provided you with a copy of a decision of the Commission in a
similar matter which the Commission believes constitutes an adequate response to your first four
questions. ( cf. Min. 140)
At its meeting on February 18, 1998, the Commission considered your fifth question and concluded that
it had also responded to the question posed in another matter. It determined that it would share that
response with you as an adequate reply to your final question. That response is enclosed.
The Commission believes that the responses which have been provided also meet the standard of
response to the questions you have posed.
144. Investigation Procedure (Ag. 2090): Prior to receiving the previous two letters, the same pastor had
asked two questions regarding the interpretation and application of Bylaw 2.27. These were
1. Because the Praesidium shall proceed in the same fashion as hereafter required of the District
President if they conclude that the facts form a basis for expulsion of the member, and because the
Praesidium is proceeding in the same fashion as the District President in undertaking to thoroughly
investigate whether the allegations can be substantiated, would the Praesidium also be required to
follow the guidelines of Matt. 18 in conducting their investigation?