# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S262 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 262 STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION the accused actually becomes the petitioner, having already been found guilty by the District President, and as such the accused is placed in the position of appealing that decision, disproving the charges, and proving why he should remain a member of the Synod; and WHEREAS, The Eighth Commandment binds us to assume the innocence of an individual until proven guilty; and WHEREAS, The present system is subjective and arbitrary and is not based upon the clear principles of Holy Scripture, where the accused is to be given the opportunity to face his accusers (clergy or laity) and see the evidence against him; and WHEREAS, Even our Lord was even given the opportunity to hear the false testimony of witnesses in His own trial; therefore be it Resolved, That the dispute resolution process or any adjudica- tion process that may be in use in the LCMS be modeled upon the assumption of innocence; and be it further Resolved, That all evidence and testimony collected and upon which charges are based be provided to the member who stands ac- cused at least 30 days before his dispute resolution hearing; and be it further Resolved, That all Dispute Resolution Panels or whatever adju- dicatory and reconciliation system that is in use by our Synod con- duct hearings in such a fashion that the accused may be given the benefit of the doubt; and be it finally Resolved, That failure of the District President, District officials, or synodical officials to abide by the Constitution, Bylaws, and pro- cedures set forth in the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and recon- ciliation process will lead to the immediate dismissal of the case against the suspended member. Immanuel Peoria, IL 7-72 To Bind Officials to Judgments of Adjudication Process Whereas, Holy Scriptures command the church to establish justice and mercy; and WHEREAS, Rulings and judgments of both the previous adjudi- cation system and the present dispute resolution system have been ignored and disobeyed by District Presidents and synodical offi- cers alike; and WHEREAS, A mockery of justice is made when individuals and entities of the Synod are exempted from the rulings of the Synod’s own adjudication process; therefore be it Resolved, That the Synod add to its Bylaws a “contempt of rul- ing charge and provision”; and be it further Resolved, That any synodical or District officer, regardless of rank, be automatically relieved of his office and duties if he is found to be in contempt of a ruling until such time as he fully exe- cutes or abides by the decisions of the Synod’s reconciliation/adju- dication process. Immanuel Peoria, IL 7-73 To Return to System of Adjudication WHEREAS, The 1992 convention of The Lutheran Church—Mis- souri Synod voted to replace the system then in place for reconcil- iation, adjudication, and appeal with a new reconciliation process; and WHEREAS. The past three years’ experience with this new pro- cedure has shown that it is based on several false presuppositions, namely: 1. That it is possible in virtually all cases of dispute for both sides to be in a “win-win” situation. Clearly this is not possible when disputants disagree regarding the interpretation and/or appli- cation of Holy Scripture and both sides are bound by their under- standing and its logical applications. 2. That such a procedure will provide for final resolution of dis- putes without resorting to the secular courts. In actual fact, the ab- sence of any “appeal” except to the same Dispute Resolution Panel that has already ruled makes it far more likely that a final resolution will be sought through the secular courts. 3. That such a procedure is less costly in terms of money and time. There is no evidence that this is in fact true. Even if it is true, the goal should be a just settlement, regardless of the time and cost involved. 4. That it is possible to require “a face-to-face meeting of the complainant and respondent in a spirit of Christian reconciliation.” It may be possible to require a “face-to-face meeting of the com- plainant and respondent,” but it is impossible to “require” that this be in “a spirit of Christian reconciliation”; and Wuereas, In Christian freedom, our Synod has seen fit to or- ganize itself into a form of “democratic” government; and WHEREAS, The most successful democratic government in the world, our own United States of America, is so organized that it has three branches of government: (1) executive, (2) legislative, and (3) judicial, each providing a “check and balance” on the oth- ers; and WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod formerly followed the same division and “checks and balances” system with three branches of government: (1) executive (President of Synod), (2) legislative (the synodical convention), and (3) judicial (the Dis- trict and synodical boards of adjudication and appeal); and WHEREAS, The substitution of the present conflict resolution process has greatly weakened the ability of a member of Synod to obtain “due process” through the present “judicial” branch, with a resultant imbalance between the three branches; therefore be it Resolved, That the 1998 convention of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod direct all appropriate authorities within the Synod and the Districts to take all steps necessary to return the Synod and Districts, as soon as possible, but in no case Jater than Jan. 1, 1999, to the system of Res. 5-01B at the 1992 synodical convention in Pittsburgh, Pa. Concordia South Haven, MN 7-74 To Return to Former Process of Adjudication WHEREAS, Our former adjudication process insured a consis- tency in its decisions because the members of the adjudication panel remained the same, except as they were replaced by conven- tion elections; and WHEREAS, Our current system of dispute resolution provides no consistency in its decisions, since each Dispute Resolution Panel is comprised of different people; and WHEREAS, Our former adjudication process provided the op- portunity for decisions rendered by “lower courts” to be reviewed by an entirely new group of people serving on a “higher court”; and WHEREAS, With our current system appeals can only be made to the same panel that made the original decision; and WHEREAS, Our former adjudication process made use of indi- viduals with expertise in making courtroomlike decisions; and WHEREAS, Our current system asks people with little or no ex- perience in settling disputes to do so; and WHEREAS, Under our former adjudication system, the way in which the proceedings would take place would be basically the same from case to case, providing people a good idea of what to expect through the process; and WHEREAS, Under the current system, the proceedings can vary widely, making it very difficult for those involved to know what to expect; and