# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S165
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
hearing panel would be comprised of three different District Presidents. The decision of that panel either to uphold
the suspension or to terminate the matter would be final
and issued in writing.
The chart for Bylaw 2.28 outlining action to expel the
President of the Synod from the roster is on page 163. I cannot even begin to articulate the personal anxiety I have over
this particular bylaw. While I believe it is probably necessary in the current climate of our church body, I also fully
believe that if we provide a means whereby action can be
initiated to remove the President of the Synod from membership—someone will take advantage of that opportunity.
The path to such action was, therefore, made purposely
difficult. Such action can only be initiated by a District
President. If a member of the Synod wishes to initiate such
action it may be done only through that person’s District
President. The decision to proceed must be made after consultation with the entire Council of Presidents and requires
66 percent of the District Presidents. If hearings are requested and the decision to recommend the expulsion of the
President is upheld by those hearings, a vote of 75 percent
of the District Presidents would be required to submit the
matter to the congregations of the Synod. A minimum of 25
percent of the congregations of the Synod would be required
to register to vote on the matter and a majority vote of
those congregations registered and voting would be required for the termination of the membership of the President of the Synod. While in practice the District Presidents
would be carrying out the actions of ecclesiastical supervision on behalf of the congregations of the Synod, the ultimate authority and responsibility for decision would remain with those congregations.
The chart portraying Bylaw 2.29 is on page 164 of the
initial Today’s Business. As mentioned earlier, entry into
this process was kept purposely broad. Since “anyone” regardless of affiliation with the Synod could potentially be
the victim of the misconduct of a member, access to the
process cannot be denied to “anyone.” Once information is
brought to the attention of the member’s ecclesiastical supervisor, the process continues in the same fashion as outlined in Bylaws 2.26 and 2.27.

To Amend Bylaws on Ecclesiastical
Supervision and Dispute Resolution
RESOLUTION 8-01A
Report 1-8-03 (CW, pp. 25-43); Overtures 8-02–03,
8-05–08, 8-10–11, 8-13–18, 8-20–29, 8-31, L8-59 (CW,
pp. 291-305; TB, p. 38)
Rationale
In 1992 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted
a process for synodical dispute resolution to replace the existing process which involved commissions on adjudication
and a commission on appeals. To a large extent this process
has proved to be beneficial and has received general acceptance in spite of efforts to return to the former process. Nevertheless, over the years the need for refinement of the bylaws governing this process has been recognized and a
number of changes have been adopted to deal with issues

165

which required change or clarification. Included among
these were such things as the addition of Appeals Panels
and Review Panels for the purpose of assuring that those
involved in disputes or charges brought against them received just and fair treatment. This was especially true
with regard to those whose membership in the Synod was
involved, whether individual or congregational. A set of
rules of procedure was also developed in order to bring
about greater uniformity on the part of various panels.
In spite of the efforts toward refinement, some problems
continued and continue to exist. These are particularly evident in those matters which involve membership in the
Synod. That fact became apparent in cases involving faculty members of the Concordia University System against
whom charges were brought as well as those brought
against District and Synod officials. Although less apparent, the same problems affected situations in which charges
were brought against ordained and commissioned members
of the Synod.
Recognizing the need for dealing with the issues noted
above, President Kieschnick in May, 2003 appointed a Blue
Ribbon Task Force on Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
to address them and propose solutions for problems which
existed.
The charts in Today’s Business beginning on page 159
illustrate the proposed bylaw changes.
After consideration of the task force report and all related overtures, the following bylaw changes are recommended:
[Unless noted otherwise, the following proposal for Chapter II
of the Bylaws is to be regarded as all new material.]

II. Membership
OVERVIEW
Included in the objectives of the Synod as stated in its
Constitution is, under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, to “[p]rovide evangelical supervision, counsel, and care
for pastors, teachers, and other professional church workers
in the performance of their official duties” and to “[p]rovide
protection for congregations, pastors, teachers and other
church workers in the performance of their official duties and
the maintenance of their rights” (Article III 8, 9). In view of
this it is clear that membership in The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod, whether individual or congregational, is
viewed as a valuable asset to be carefully monitored and managed. In order for this to occur it is necessary for standards
to be developed and maintained for the benefit of all members so that its value is not diminished or destroyed. Consequently, it is important for the Synod to establish the standards and qualifications it believes necessary for acquiring
and maintaining the status of membership as well as procedures for protecting those who attain it.
In achieving these goals the Synod has identified certain
standards which must be met before membership, whether
individual or congregational, is granted and has identified
those responsible for determining that such standards have
been met before approving their inclusion on the official
membership rosters of the Synod. Furthermore, it has identified those responsible for ecclesiastical supervision of its
2004 Convention Proceedings