# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S295
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 295

; WHEREAS, This has resulted in individuals, congregations, Dis-
tricts, and synodical servants to have their ministries compromised
by the current procedures; and

WHEREAS, This has caused untold expenditures of time, energy,
and financial resources to be diverted from constructive and pro-
ductive ministry; and

WHEREAS, The application of these procedures has created an
atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust; and

Wuereas, Christian ethics call us to live in responsible, coop-
erative, and productive ways, which are above the norm of the
world’s behavior; and

Wuereas, Resolution 7-19, “To Have Council of Presidents
Discuss and Report on Bylaw 2.27,” was overwhelmingly adopted
at Synod’s 2001 convention (2001 Proceedings, p. 173); therefore
be it

Resolved, That the CNH District memorialize the 2004 Synod
convention to revise the procedures of Bylaw 2.27 with special at-
tention to:

1. Presumption of Innocence.

2. Action taken on the most local Jevel possible.

3. Finality of decision on the most local level possible.

4. An appeal process for the accused.

5. A process for clearing the reputation of the accused when
found innocent.

6. Financial equity for the accused.
7. Assurance of responsible action on the part of the accuser.

8. A gate-keeping process that determines the validity of the
accusation at the most local level possible; and be it finally

Resolved, That the President of the CNH District be directed to
communicate this desire to the COP Task Force that has been given
this assignment by the 2001 Synod convention.

California-Nevada-Hawaii District

8-10

To Revise 1998 Convention Changes
to Bylaws 2.27 g and 2.25 f

WHEREAS, Since the changes in 1998 to Bylaws 2.27 g and 2.25
f of the Handbook, there has been a great deal of disruption in
Synod by people bringing charges against District Presidents even
though they are not members of that District; therefore be it

Resolved, That the English District memorialize the 2004
LCMS convention to rescind the Bylaw changes of 1998 (2.27 g
and 2.25 f) to the synodical Handbook.

English District

8-11,

To Revise Bylaws 2.27 and 6.47

WuerEAS, Matt. 18:15-20 provides the basis for resolving dis-
agreements, disputes, and offenses that arise among members of
the Body of Christ; and

WHEREAS, Timothy was instructed never to accept “an accusa-
tion against an elder unless it is supported by two or three wit-
nesses” (1 Tim. 5:19); and

Whereas, Under Bylaw 2.27 the one bringing an accusation
against a member of the Synod may appeal the decision of the Dis-
trict President to the Synod President and Vice-Presidents, the ef-
fect being that the accuser has two opportunities to prosecute a
member of the Synod (“double-jeopardy”’); and

Whereas, There is a recognized need to change Bylaw 2.27 to
provide for better protection for members of the Synod and to es-
tablish a system of justice which is more just and loving than the
secular society in which we live (Resolution 7-19, “To Have Coun-
cil of Presidents Discuss and Report on Bylaw 2.27,” 2001 Pro-
ceedings, p. 173); and

Wuereas, Bylaw 2.27 does not define what “a written com-
plaint” is; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 2.27 does not contain explicit reference to By-
laws 6.43, 6.45, and 6.47; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 2.27 does not provide explicit due process (in
accordance with Bylaws 6.43, 6.45, and 6.47) for an accused mem-
ber of Synod who also is a faculty member or administrator at one
of the accredited colleges or universities of the LCMS; and

WHEREAS, Questions have been raised regarding the final two
sentences of Bylaw 2.27 g, since the Synod President has the su-
pervision regarding the doctrine and administration of all officers,
employees, individual Districts, and District Presidents of the
Synod (Constitution XI B) and since he “has and always shall have
the power to advise, admonish, and reprove” (ibid.; emphasis
added); and

WHuerEAS, Under Bylaw 6.47 a person is assumed guilty until
he or she proves himself or herself otherwise at three different lev-
els of adjudication: the Board of Regents (6.47 a—f), the District
President (6.47 g), and the Synod Praesidium (2.27 b), (i.e., under
Bylaw 6.47, the one bringing an accusation against a member of
the Synod may appeal the decisions of the Board of Regents and
the District President so that in effect the accuser has three oppor-
tunities to prosecute a member of the Synod [“triple-jeopardy”]);
and

WHEREAS, Bylaws 6.43, 6.45, and 6.47 delineate LCMS boards
of regents responsibilities, including the responsibility of doctrinal
supervision of faculty members (Bylaw 6.43 c 6, Bylaw 6.45 a, and
Bylaw 6.47); and

Wuereas, Bylaw 6.45 states, “The Board of Regents shall have
authority to investigate, hear, and act on any complaint arising out
of Bylaw 6.43 c 1-6”; and

Wuereas, Local accrediting agencies of LCMS colleges and
universities are concerned that local college and university boards
of regents actually have, and responsibly exercise, supervision of
their institutions; therefore be it

Resolved, That the NW District of the LCMS memorialize the
Synod to revise Bylaws 2.27 and 6.47 as follows:

PRESENF/PROPOSED WORDING
I. Bylaw 2.27:

a. The words of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-20 provide the
church with teaching that should be heeded in matters of dis-
utes, disagreements. and offenses that arise among members
of the Body of Christ. (See also the Preamble of Chapter VIII
of these Bylaws.) The goal of conflict resolution in the church
is reconciliation and restoration of the erring member in a spirit
of gentleness and Christian love for the member of the church.
Therefore, if a potential complainant perceives that a member
of the Synod is guilty of conduct or of some persistent condi-
tion that could Jead to the member’s expulsion from the Synod
under Article XII, then the complainant shall seek out the erring
member in a private and informal manner in order to understand
if the member is truly in error and, if so, to set the matter straight

and to restore the erring member to fellowship. Throughout the
reconciliation process, the complainant shall protect the honor

and reputation of the member.
b. If these informal efforts do not result in repentance and
reconciliation then the complainant shall take along one or two
who shall act as witnesses and intermediaries for the sake
of resolving the matter quickly and justly and restoring the
erring member (the respondent) to the fellowship.
c. If the complainant is convinced that such repeated efforts

at informal and private r i ve failed, then the com-
plainant shall present a formal written complaint to the respon-
dent and to the respondent’s District President. However, if the
respondent is a faculty member or administrator in one of the
Synod’s accredited colleges or universities, then the com-
plainant shall present his or her complaint to the respondent and
to the respondent's Board of Regents and shall hereafter follow
the procedure given in Bylaw 6.47 a~g. The formal written com-
plaint shall include a summary of the facts that form the basis

for the allegations that could lead to the member’s expulsion