# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S262
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

262 STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION

WHEREAS, “Due process” and the “rules of evidence” are deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis, which means there is no true due
process; and

WHEREAS, District Presidents can engage in a kind of “bait and
switch” technique by placing before the panel a written case prior
to a hearing but bringing before the panel entirely different charges
and accusations during the hearing; and

Wuereas, The District Presidents can withhold charges and
“evidence” from the accused until the very last moment and thus
deny the accused an adequate time to prepare an answer to such
last-minute charges; and

Wuereas, This “bait and switch” technique is sometimes fol-
lowed by the “pile on” approach, wherein several new accusations
are made during the hearing; and

WHEREAS, The present dispute resolution process does not per-
mit the accused to have an advocate who may speak on his or her
behalf; and

WHEREAS, These “bait and switch” and “pile on” techniques are
especially effective because the accused is not trained in matters of
law, rules of evidence, arguing cases, or cross examination; and

Wuereas, The dispute resolution process does not allow the ac-
cused to be represented by an advocate in the hearings; and

WHEREAS, The denial of a competent advocate who is able to
speak in defense of the accused and question and cross examine
witnesses is a denial of due process and the Eighth Commandment;
and

WHEREAS, Due process is a confessional principle, and disci-
pline without it is condemned in the Confessions in “The Power
and Jurisdiction of the Pope,” whercin we read, “To be sure, they
sometimes punished persons involved in adultery, but in this con-
nection they often harassed innocent and honest men. Besides,
since this is a very serious charge, nobody should be condemned
without due process of law”; and

WHEREAS, No Christian should be placed in the position of hav-
ing to defend himself or herself and thus be placed in the position
of having to prove to the world that he or she is a dutiful and good
Christian, but rather may be conscience-bound to stand silent be-
fore accusers as our Lord Himself did; and

WuerEAS, The church has a duty to allow and even provide for
Christian advocates who will defend the actions of a neighbor and
especially the accused, as our Confessions teach in the explanation
to the Eighth Commandment (L.C.), “Moreover, you are to defend,
protect, and rescue your neighbor whenever he is in danger or need,
and on the contrary to aid and assist him so that he may retain his
honor”; and

WHEREAS, There is presently no time limit on the hearings that
can be held, which makes it possible to hold hearings that last from
early morning to late at night; and

WHEREAS, By the time the parties reach agreement on prace-
dural matters, informal attempts at reconciliation, and instructions
to all the parties involved, considerable time has already elapsed;
and

WHEREAS, Because dispute resolution panels are often dealing
with a church worker's or pastor’s career and reputation, panelists
should take every step necessary to hear the case under the best
possible circumstances; and

Whereas, The present dispute resolution process has a few
good features contained within, namely, the attempts at informal
and formal reconciliation; and

WHEREAS, The previous adjudication system did not have
proper procedures for informal and formal reconciliation; and

Wuereas, The civil realm has imposed on various offenses
statutes of limitation, and the Synod’s dispute resolution process
does not take into consideration those limitations; and

Whereas, A restriction, investigation, suspension, hearing, and
review can sometimes take well over a year to complete, while
state laws governing statutes of limitation are binding and sure; and

200! Convention Workbook

Wuereas, A hybrid system of reconciliation, adjudication, and
appeal! that combines the initial reconciliation attempts of the pres-
ent system and the formal adjudication procedures of the previous
system would be a good and God-pleasing system; therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod accept
the attached proposed reconciliation, adjudication, and appeal sys-
tem in place of the present Chapter VIII, ‘“Synodical Dispute Res-
olution,” of the 1998 synodical Handbook.

Immanuel
Peoria. IL

VIII. RECONCILIATION, ADJUDICATION,
AND APPEAL (Proposal)

Preamble

When disputes, disagreements, or offenses arise among mem-
bers of the body of Christ, it is a matter of grave concern for the
whole church. Conflicts that occur in the body should be resolved
promptly (Matt. 5:23-24; Eph. 4:26-27). Parties are urged by the
mercies of God to proceed with one another with “the same atti-
tude that was in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). For the sake of the
Gospel, the church should spare no resource in providing assistance
in resolving disputes, disagreements, and offenses that arise among
the members of the church.

The Holy Scriptures (1 Cor. 6:1-7) urge Christians to settle
their differences by laying them before the “members of the broth-
erhood.” It is also the responsibility of the church to provide due
process to all parties involved in a dispute and to know and do jus-
tice (Micah 3:1). The Synod and the members of the Synod have a
mutual and God-given responsibility to seek and establish the truth
and act accordingly.

Therefore, the Synod in the spirit of Matt. 18:15-20; | Tim.
5:19-20; and Micah 3:1 calls upon all parties to a disagreement,
accusation, controversy, or disciplinary action to rely primarily on
the Synod’s system of reconciliation and adjudication. Fitness for
ministry and other theological matters must be determined within
the church. Parties are urged, in matters of a doctrinal nature, to
follow the procedures as outlined in Bylaw 2.39 c.

The words of Jesus in Matt. 18:15-20 provide the basis for
church discipline for the local congregation for private offenses.
The same passage also grants Christ’s guidance to all Christians in
seeking to settle other disputes, many of which fall outside the
purview of church discipline involving the congregation. In either
case, the steps of Matt. 18 should be applied lovingly in both for-
mal and informal scttings.

But when a matter is public, such as teaching and preaching of
doctrine or a question of slander, injustice, or public false witness,
the steps of Matt. 18 may not apply and the parties may bring the
matter before the public, either before the civil or the ecclesiastical
court. Where the sin is public, the punishment ought to be public so
that everyone may know how to guard against it (L.C. exp. to the
Eighth Commandment).

The parties and others attempting to effect resolution of a dis-
pute must always remain mindful that the church has been given
the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Hence, the reconcil-
lation, adjudication, and appeals procedures in the church are to
lead to reconciliation in restoring the erring member in a spirit of
gentleness (Gal. 6:1).

The heart and center of all Christian conflict resolution is the
justification of the sinner through grace in Christ Jesus. Biblical
reconciliation of persons in conflict begins with God’s truth that
we are all sinners who have been reconciled to God through the
death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Christ's ministry of recon-
ciliation is one of the church’s foremost priorities.

Christians involved in conflict must always stand ready to ask
for or extend forgiveness in accordance with Scripture. As the
church endeavors to help bring about peace, truth, justice, and rec-
onciliation, it always seeks to do so with a proper distinction be-
tween Law and Gospel, that is, in the context of God’s judgment
and mercy. We are ever to be mindful that it is God who judges the
hearts of sinful men and grants His gracious word of forgiveness to