LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — August 17, 2000, Page 9

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

Question 4:

“May a District President or the Praesidium refuse to suspend a member of the Synod
against whom a charge has been made according to Bylaw 2.27 simply or only because
the member in question claims to ‘dissent’ according to Bylaw 2.39?”

Opinion: While a question arising under Bylaw 2.39 is being examined under the provisions of Bylaw
2.39, a District President or the Praesidium may not suspend the member, so long as the dissenting
member is conforming to Bylaw 2.39. If the member does not honor and uphold the doctrinal resolutions
of the Synod during that time, a District President or the Praesidium may properly suspend the member if
warranted by the facts of the case.
The second series of questions submitted by the pastor focused on Bylaw 2.27, as follows:
Question 5:

“May a District President require of all the pastors of a District that they not pursue
Bylaw 2.27 against a pastor who publicly holds to a question which conflicts with Article
II of the Constitution and the public doctrine of the church?”

Opinion: Under Bylaw 2.27 a District President may not prohibit any pastor from filing charges against
another pastor who publicly holds to a position which conflicts with Article II of the Constitution and the
public doctrine of the church. The District President is bound to “thoroughly investigate whether the
allegations can be substantiated” (Bylaw 2.27, a, 1). Following the investigation, the District President
may or may not take action in accordance with the facts of the case.
Question 6:

“May a pastor be exempt from Bylaw 2.27 simply because the District has requested him
to present his position on a doctrinal matter in a public forum?”

Opinion: The use of the term “public forum” is not defined in the question. Bylaw 2.39 requires that the
member honor and uphold the doctrinal resolutions of the Synod during the dissent process. At the same
time Bylaw 2.39 anticipates discussion among the fellowship of peers, submission of the theological issue
to the CTCR, and, finally, an overture to the synodical convention. Thus, Bylaw 2.39 provides for
discussion and debate of the issues raised by the dissenting member among the pastors and theologians of
the Synod. Public rejection of Synod’s doctrinal positions and the advocacy of contrary dissenting
positions to the whole church is prohibited by Bylaw 2.39.
Question 7:

“Can a member of the Synod who exercises ‘brotherly dissent’ by disagreeing with the
public doctrine of the Synod through a theological paper presented to the pastors of his
district conference, be exempt from charges of false doctrine according to Bylaw 2.27?”

Opinion: A pastor who is expressing dissent under Bylaw 2.39 may properly present a theological paper
to a pastoral conference articulating the theological reasons for his dissent. This falls within the
parameters of Bylaw 2.39, c, which allows such issues to be expressed within the “fellowship of peers.”
Question 8:

“May such a member continue to exercise ‘brotherly dissent’ in other public forums? At
what point is the dissent subject to termination by the Synod?”

Opinion: The term “public forum” has not been defined in the question. Bylaw 2.39 provides for
discussion of the dissenter’s views under a process that leads to the CTCR and ends with a convention of
the Synod. The issue of how long this discussion is to take place is not addressed in the bylaw. Members
of the Synod, proceeding in good faith, would presumably have a strong interest in seeing their concerns
addressed by the procedures provided in Bylaw 2.39 in a timely manner. A dissenting member would
possibly be subject to charges (1) if he/she did not honor the doctrinal resolutions of Synod during the
dissent process, or (2) if he/she rejected the Synod’s decision regarding his/her dissent and publicly

180