# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S297 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION 297 8-12 To Require One Year of Public Discussion When Addressing Theological Complaints WHEREAS, The current Synod system of dealing with charges of false doctrine seems to discourage or even prohibit public discus- sion of the theological issues related to the charges; and _ WHEREAS, New theological issues or practices involving a new application of theological principles deserve (indeed, require) ex- tensive study and discussion within the Synod; and WuerEAS, Different types of conflicts (relational, moral, eccle- siastical, theological) require different types of evidence and meth- ods for resolving them (e.g., ecclesiastical disputes require institu- tional and procedural processes involving Bylaws); therefore be it Resolved, That any charge of false doctrine or of public prac- tice that betrays false doctrine be filed as a theological complaint with the ecclesiastical supervisor of the person against whom the charge is made; and be it further Resolved, That when, in the informed judgment of the ecclesi- astical supervisor, such theological complaints involve new theo- logical issues or application of theological principles to new situa- tions, the supervisor shall call for a one-year period of joint study and reflection, during which public comment, debate, and discus- sion of issues and principles related to such theological complaints be invited; and be it further Resolved, That the invitation for such public comment on and discussion of specific theological complaints be issued through an official publication of the Synod; and be it finally Resolved, That if, after the one-year period of public discussion, the issue has not been resolved, the complainant may request to ini- tiate the process described in the present Bylaw 2.27. Faculty Concordia Seminary St. Louis, MO 8-13 To Review Dispute Resolution Process WHEREAS, While our present constitutional dispute resolution method was very well intended, and has accomplished some bless- ings within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, it has in many cases and areas been more of an impediment than a help. It seems on occasion to take the simple Gospel intent of Scripture in our dealings with each other and cover it with rules and regulations; therefore be it Resolved, That the English District memorialize the 2004 LCMS convention to request the Council of Presidents, in consul- tation with those they deem necessary, to review and study our pres- ent Chapter VIE, Synodical Dispute Resolution, and bring sug- gested changes to the 2007 convention. English District 8-14 To Revise Current Reconciliation Process WHEREAS, The current reconciliation process of the LCMS has demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses since its inception; and WHEREAS, A strength of the reconciliation procedure is that it provides for both informal and formal meetings with a reconciler to encourage disputing parties to sit down and talk face-to-face with each other to try to resolve their differences (Bylaw 8.07); and WHEREAS, An inherent weakness in the procedure has shown it- self in the next step of the process where a Dispute Resolution Panel is to review previous reconciliation attempts and issue rul- ings on the unresolved case at hand; and WHEREAS, This weakness involves the fact that this panel can place people who have not received adequate theological training, into positions where they are issuing rulings on complex theologi- cal matters; and WHEREAS, It would be an improvement to the current system if there was a provision in the process at the point of the Dispute Res- olution Panel, when a matter clearly involves difficult theological matters for a special panel to be used in consultation with the regu- lar panel; and that this special panel be made up of professors from each Seminary and other well-trained theologians that are elected by each Seminary faculty and placed into a pool for such a pur- pose; therefore be it Resolved, That the Iowa District East, in convention, petition the Synod, in convention, to assign the task of creating such a the- ological panel to an appropriate board or committee, that the nec- essary changes be made to the Bylaws for the use of such a panel, and that this panel be made available for special cases as soon as possible. Iowa District East 8-15 To Revise Bylaws re Dispute Resolution Panels WHEREAS, The Task Force on Conflict Resolution authorized by the 1998 convention of the Synod presented its report to the syn- odical Board of Directors, which then presented overtures to the 2001 convention of the Synod with specific recommendations for amendments in the Bylaws dealing with the Dispute Resolution Process (7-68) and revisions in the Bylaws governing Dispute Res- olution Panels (7-69); and WHEREAS, Floor Committee 7 of the 2001 convention essen- tially concurred with the proposed changes; and WHEREAS, Resolutions 7-25 and 7-26 failed to be considered by the 2001 convention; and WHEREAS, The amendments suggested by the task force, ap- proved by the synodical Board of Directors, and supported by the floor committee are appropriate and needed; therefore be it Resolved, That Overtures 7-68 and 7-69 (2001 convention) be resubmitted to the 2004 convention of The Lutheran Church—Mis- souri Synod. Florida-Georgia District 7-68 To Amend Bylaws re Dispute Resolution Process Rationale : The Task Force on Conflict Resolution has recommended several changes to the Bylaws governing the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process to address the following concerns: © The value of providing to reconcilers the best training available cannol be overstated and will be of utmost importance to the ongoing success of the Dispute Resolution Process. The Synod through its Board of Directors should assume responsi- bility for the provision of adequate funding to provide for train- ing and material needs. ¢ The Rules of Procedure and their addendum, the Stan- dards of Review for Appeal Panels, provide essential detailed guidance to participants in the Dispute Resolution Process. Until now these rules have been developed and monitored by the Task Force on Conflict Resolution and approved by the Board of Directors and President of the Synod, as required by 1995 Res. 7-03B. Mention of these Rules of Procedure should be made in the Bylaws of the Synod to provide necessary status. A process should be included in the Bylaws to provide for moni- toring and amendment. e While the Task Force on Conflict Resolution has com- pleted its task, the need for giving attention to the Dispute Res- olution Process may arise again in the future. The Secretary of the Synod, who already has the responsibility for the adminis- tration of the process, should also be given the responsibility to initiate the appointment of an ad hoc committee by the Presi- dent of the Synod when it becomes necessary to address special problems. The following amendments to the Bylaws are proposed to address these concerns.