LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1975, Page 486

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

488 CONSTITUTIONAL OPINIONS

the necessity of expulsion from the Synod. The Commission on
Constitutional Matters rules as follows:

1. A faculty member who is a member of the Synod may be
found guilty of false doctrine, or of acting contrary to the con-
ditions of membership listed in Article VI of the Constitution,
or of offensive conduct, or of the other causes listed in Bylaw
6.77 c and may be removed from office by a Board of Control.

2. Within 90 days such a person may appeal the decision to
the Board of Appeals (Bylaw 6.81). If he fails to appeal within
that time, his removal from office is final.

3. A faculty member can be found guilty of false doctrine
or of acting contrary to one or more of the conditions of mem-
bership listed in Article VI of the Constitution, or of offensive
conduct, and be removed from membership in the Synod only
through the route established in Chapter V of the Bylaws,
specifically in Bylaws 5.11 to 5.15, 5.31, 5.43, and 5.45.

4. In a case in which the Board of Control has removed a
member for a cause which could also result in removal from
membership in the Synod, the board shall proceed under the
provisions of Bylaw 6.79 | and 5.11 and forward the charge and
transcript to the District President.

5. The accusation (Bylaw 5.11) presented to the District
President shall consist of the findings of the Board of Control,
the transcript of the proceedings, and all supporting documents
submitted by the Board of Control under Bylaw 6.79 1.

6. Since the Board of Control is obligated under Bylaw 6.79 |
to forward the accusation to the District President, no publicity
should be given the case beyond the simple announcement by
the Board of Control of the action taken and of its basis (Bylaw
5.31 j).

7. The District President must proceed under the provisions
of Bylaws 5.11 and 5.13.

8. If the District President or Vice-Presidentis) fails to act,
that is, decides that the case is not of such a nature to warrant
suspension (‘‘may suspend’”’), or delays any decision beyond the
reasonable time required by the word “promptly” and by the
other specific prescriptions of time, the President of the Synod
may at his own discretion or upon appeal by the accusers take
action (Bylaw 5.13).

9. If the case is taken either by the District officers or by the
synodical President to the District Commission of Adjudication,
suspension must be imposed.

10. The decision of the District Commission of Adjudication
may be appealed by either party only to the Synod’s Board of
Appeals, whose decision shall be final.

Feb. 21, 1975

Ruling re District President
in John Tietjen Case

The question has been raised: To which District President
shall the transcript of proceedings in the John Tietjen case be
forwarded under the requirement of Bylaw 6.79 1? The Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters replies as follows:

1. With respect to any activity as president of Concordia
Seminary, the District President under whose ecclesiastical
supervision Dr. John Tietjen stands is by Bylaw provision the
President of the Missouri District.

2. The argument that upon termination of office Dr. John
Tietjen was no longer under the supervision of the Missouri
District President and therefore now under the supervision of
the English District President is invalid, since the reference
in Bylaw 6.79 | does not refer to a new case but to the activities
of the accused while he was president of the seminary and
therefore under the ecclesiastical supervision of the Missouri
District President (Bylaw 6.80; 1.09 d).

3. The matter is complicated by the fact that Dr. Tietjen did
not transfer his membership to the Missouri District as Bylaw
1.09 d would seem to suggest. The Board of Control of all of our
colleges and seminaries may take this into consideration in
issuing future contracts or contract renewals and require that
faculty members so contracted for transfer their membership
to the geographical District in which the institution is located.
Bylaw 3.05 gives the Synod the right to assign congregations,

clergymen, and teachers to a certain District. It has long been
an unwritten custom that pastors called from one District to
another are transferred to the second District. The Synod has
also assigned one whole group of its members to a District in
Bylaw 1.09 d in the case of those who are serving as District
executives. The transfer of pastors and teachers to the District
of the calling congregation has now also been made mandatory
in the same Bylaw.

Feb. 21, 1975

Opinion on Dissenting Groups

The Commission on Constitutional Matters has received sev-
eral questions dealing with the organization of dissenting groups
within the Synod.

After detailed study of this matter the commission concludes
that the questions raised at this time have already been essen-
tially answered in the “Opinion on Dissenting Groups and Activ-
ities Within the Synod” Issued by the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters in the fall of 1969 and upheld by the 1971 synodical
convention (see Res. 5-13). The commission therefore decided
at its Nov. 1-2, 1973, meeting to reaffirm its earlier opinion and
to publish it once again.

However, in the light of present circumstances the Com-
mission on Constitutional Matters has decided to continue to
study the implications of the events occurring within The Lu-
theran Church — Missouri Synod and reserves the right to issue
a supplementary opinion upon the completion of the study, if
it feels that it is necessary to do so. We appeal once again to all
members of the Synod to use the channels which the Constitu-
tion, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod provide for resolving
our differences without resorting to the organization and con-
tinuation of separate groups.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters also called atten-
tion to the fact that the Synod since 1969 has indeed given atten-
tion to refining the process of proper dissent especially through
the adoption of Resolution 5-24 in Milwaukee and of Bylaw 1.09
e in New Orleans.

An Opinion Regarding Dissenting Groups
and Activities Within the Synod

(Issued by the Commission on Constitutional Matters in the fall of 1969,
endorsed and upheld by the 1971 synodical convention, and reaffirmed
by the Commission on Constitutional Matters Nov. 2, 1973)

From several quarters the Commission on Constitutional
Matters has received inquiries which may be summarized in the
following constitutional questions:

Is it permissible under the Constitution of the Synod, without
the consent of the Synod, to call into being organizations whose
purposes are to express dissent to the resolutions of the Synod
or whose purposes might ostensibly be in keeping with the
purposes and functions of the Synod but might in reality arro-
gate responsibilities which the Synod has reserved to itself?
By the same token, is it permissible for existing organizations to
engage in such activities?

The Commission on Constitutional Matters holds that such
actions subvert the Constitution of the Synod.

The very nature and purpose of a synodical fellowship need
to be restated once again. A synod is a ‘walking together.” The
choice of the word “synod,” derived from the Greek, is signifi-
cant because it emphasizes the idea of unity. For good reason
our church body has chosen for itself the name: “The Lutheran
Church — Missouri Synod.” We are congregations, pastors, and
teachers who have decided to join hands and to walk together.

The preamble of the Constitution has the subheading:
“Reason for the Forming of a Synodical Union.” Union was the
major concern in effecting the organization of the Synod. The
concepts of fellowship, togetherness, brotherhood, and “walking
together” express the basic purpose of the Synod’s existence.

The reasons given in the preamble for forming the union are
“1. The example of the apostolic church, Acts 15:1-31,” and “2.
Our Lord’s will that the diversities of gifts should be for the
common profit, 1 Cor. 12:4-31.”" Once again the emphasis falls
upon the idea of unity.

In Article III, Objects, the fundamental thrust of the Synod
is not only clearly stated but is given preeminence. The first
purpose of the Synod is listed as: ‘“The conservation and promo-