Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 170

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 170

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS

170

process for expulsion from membership in the Synod. Bylaw 1.10.7.4 (a) and Bylaw 1.10.18.1 (e) also
permit an advisor in dispute resolution cases. Is the
use of an advisor also permitted under Bylaw 2.13.2
when an individual member of Synod is placed on
restricted status? If it is prohibited, how do the bylaws ensure due process, fairness, and impartiality?
Opinion: There is a significant difference in the purpose of Bylaw
sections 2.14, 2.17, and 1.10. Bylaw section 1.10 is for resolving
disputes among members of the Synod. It may lead to the formation
of a formal panel, which will hear the case and render a binding decision. Both parties in the dispute, if they so choose, are allowed to
select an advisor of their choice, who will assist in the formal proceedings subject to the applicable bylaws. Bylaw sections 2.14 and
2.17 deal with the process for removal of a member of the Synod
from membership in the Synod. These sections conclude with formal proceedings, as the result of which a hearing panel will render a
binding decision. Both parties in the process, if they so choose, are
allowed to select an advisor of their choice, who will assist in the
preparation for the formal hearing and at the formal hearing operate
subject to the applicable bylaws.
The purpose of Bylaw 2.13.2 is to facilitate the ability of a district president to exercise proper ecclesiastical supervision by conducting an investigation when he becomes aware of substantive
information that could lead to the expulsion of a member from the
Synod under Article XIII or the removal of a member of the Synod
from a called position by a congregation. An individual on restricted status is eligible to continue in his current call and any other
position currently held in the Synod at the time he was placed on
restricted status. He may not accept a call to any other position of
service in the Synod. While in certain cases restricted status can be
extended, restricted status is intended to last for no more than one
year with either the situation being resolved and restricted status
removed, or the member suspended which leads to an expulsion
process described in Bylaw section 2.14 or 2.17.
An individual on restricted status may petition the Council of
Presidents for removal of restricted status as described in Bylaws
2.13.3–2.13.3.2. In the event that the petition to remove restricted
status fails, the member simply continues on restricted status and
the investigation by the district president continues.
Bylaws 2.13.3–2.13.3.2 make no provision for an advisor in the
process, since in essence the question is whether or not the district
president should proceed in determining the facts of the case in
order to enable him to conclude the process either with a lifting
of the restricted status or suspension of the member. The role of
the advisor comes at the time the formal proceedings begin under
Bylaw section 2.14 or 2.17. At this point an advisor is available to
each party, intended to assist both parties in the presenting of their
cases before the hearing panel.
The only formal proceeding involved in Bylaws 2.13.2–2.13.3.2,
dealing with restricted status, is the hearing of a petition for removal of such status (Bylaw 2.13.3.2). The attendance at that hearing is
fixed by Bylaw 2.13.3.2 (e) and, in notable contrast to procedures
under Bylaw sections 1.10, 2.14, and 2.17, does not allow for attendance of an advisor to either party.
Question 2:

If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” in what way(s)
is this advisor different from the spiritual care that
is mandated in Bylaw 2.13.2.4 and Bylaw 2.13.4.3
(b)?

2026 Convention Workbook

Opinion: Bylaws 2.13.2.4 and 2.13.4.3 (b) require the district
president to “minister to [a restricted or suspended] member either directly or through others, concern himself with the spiritual
well-being of [the] member, and continue efforts to resolve those
matters which led to the imposition of [restricted or suspended] status.” This activity is the responsibility of the district president and
originates from his office. The advisors provided for in the procedures of Bylaw sections 1.10, 2.14, and 2.17 are selected by the
respective parties, subject to those Bylaws and Standard Operating
Procedures Manuals. There is no formal advisor provided in the
2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process. This does not preclude the restricted or
suspended member from seeking advice from other sources of his
or her own choosing.
Question 3:

Is the individual member of Synod who is placed
on restricted status free to choose her or his advisor in the same manner that is permitted under Bylaw 1.10.7.4 (a), Bylaw 1.10.18.1 (e), and Bylaw
2.14.7.8 (h)? If not, how do the bylaws ensure due
process, fairness, and impartiality?

Opinion: There is no advisor provided in the 2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process.
Question 4:

Must any advisor to an individual member of the
Synod who is on restricted status be appointed by
the applicable district president or approved by the
district president? If “yes,” how does this ensure due
process, fairness, and impartiality?

Opinion: There is no advisor provided in the 2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process.
Question 5:

May a district president prevent an individual member of Synod from serving as an advisor to another
individual member of Synod by exercising ecclesiastical discipline against her or him? If “‘yes,” how
does this ensure due process, fairness, and impartiality?

Opinion: There is no advisor provided in the 2.13.2 or 2.13.3 process. Should the case of an individual who had been placed on restricted status proceed to a Bylaw section 2.14 or 2.17 process, the
member, who is now on suspended status, may choose anyone as an
advisor in accordance with the Bylaws and the controlling Standard
Operating Procedures Manual.
Any such advisor, if a member of the Synod, remains even in his
or her conduct as an advisor under the ecclesiastical supervision of
his or her district president. It is conceivable that a member of the
Synod in serving as an advisor could act in such a way that he or
she would put his or her own membership in the Synod in jeopardy.
It was unclear to the commission if this question is also intended to
be in relation to the advisor referenced in the following question. If
so, see the response to Question 6.
Question 6:

The February 2020 edition of the Circuit Visitors’
Manual states the following concerning the choice
for an advisor when a pastor might be facing possible removal from office by a congregation’s voters
assembly: “The district president is encouraged to
appoint a pastoral adviser [sic] for the pastor to assist him in examining the charges and preparing biblical responses to charges” (5 a, p. 275). “The pastor
is encouraged to have an advisor with him during
this meeting to assist him in preparing his biblical