# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S122
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

122 SYNODICAL REPORTS

from AAL and by a major gift received from a donor for this pur-
pose.

Unfortunately, in some areas of the Synod there continues to be
a misunderstanding of the process. It is reflected in statements such
as that one party is intending to “take someone to adjudication.”
This kind of approach reflects a view that the process defined in
chapter VIII of the Bylaws is basically a legal process. The as-
sumption is that it begins and ends with identifying a third party or
group who will make a decision for the parties involved in conflict.
It is true that a decision will be made if a hearing is held before a
Dispute Resolution Panel. However, that event is only a final stage
of the process that is invoked when the parties have not been able,
either by themselves or with the help of a reconciler, to arrive at
their own solution. This is true, even in matters of suspension
which can lead to removal from the roster of the Synod since it as-
sumes that suspension occurs only after intensive efforts have been
made to deal with problems in ministry without achieving resolu-
tion, and the District President concludes that the ministry must be
terminated. While the real goal is resolution and reconciliation
rather than vindication, that does not mean that issues of right and
wrong are ignored. There is, for example, no compromise in mat-
ters of doctrine. Nevertheless, emphasis is on recognition of sin,
repentance when necessary, and forgiveness in the name of Christ.

At the 1995 synodical convention the task force was asked to
develop Rules of Procedure for the synodical dispute resolution
process. It also asked that these be approved by the President and
Board of Directors. That task has been completed and Rules of Pro-
cedure have been distributed to all reconcilers. In addition, copies
of these Rules of Procedure are provided to parties involved in dis-
putes which reach the stage where a Dispute Resolution Panel is
required. The task force also prepared a document entitled Stan-
dards of Review for Appeal Panels to guide District Presidents in
their review of decisions which are appealed to determine whether
a Review Panel should review the entire matter. Incidentally, of all
cases appealed, in only one was there a decision reached that such
a review should be conducted.

While the process which is now being used has resulted in sig-
nificant financial savings, that is not its primary purpose. More im-
portant is the recognition that conflicts all have their origin in our
sinful nature which seeks to put self first, a condition which can
only be dealt with under the cross, the forgiving love of the Lord,
Jesus Christ. Perhaps a few figures will demonstrate that this has
been happening: A report at the end of the year 1995 revealed the
following comparison:

1992 1995
Adjudication cases
Reported by Districts 4 30
Cases still in process at year end 3 12
Cost of adjudication to Districts $ 57,500 $ 9,265
Average cost per case $ 14,375 $ 220

These indicate that with a level playing field, more persons
were willing to deal with differences which existed since they were
not required to have legal counsel represent them or permitted to
have them speak for them in hearings. They are able to afford to
have the church help them resolve their differences. It reveals that
conflicts or differences are resolved in a more timely manner. Most
striking is the difference in cost which reflects only cost to the Dis-
tricts and does not take into account costs for legal representation
incurred by parties other than Districts.

From the beginning it was recognized that fine tuning of the
process would be necessary. Some was accomplished in 1995. The
Task Force is bringing a number of recommendations to the con-
vention for additional modification which it believes will make the
process even more effective than it has been.

It is the prayer of the Task Force on Conflict Resolution that
through this process the vision of the President, a vision adopted
by the Synod in 1995, will be more effectively achieved, namely,
that our Synod will be a church body marked by peace and unity.
May God grant it.

Albert Marcis, Chairman