# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S17
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNOD REPORTS 17

along with President Kieschnick and Vice-President Diekelman,
met and conferred with a committee of the plaintiffs until an agree-
ment to resolve the claims was reached.

The Agreement includes a dismissal of all claims against Pres-
ident Kieschnick, Vice-President Diekelman, and the Synod. It also
includes an expression of regret by the plaintiffs for the pejorative
language contained in and resulting from the filing of the lawsuit
and an apology to the Synod, the President, the First Vice-Presi-
dent, and all others offended by the lawsuit. No disciplinary action
for participation in the lawsuit will be taken against plaintiffs who
sign the Agreement.

In the Agreement the President commits to reaffirming his com-
munications to the district presidents of the Synod regarding the
implementation of bylaws governing visitation and electoral cir-
cuits, In the spirit of Bylaw 3.1.2, he will first direct individual vis-
itation circuits not meeting bylaw requirements for electoral
circuits to the remedy provided by the bylaw (to combine with an
adjacent visitation circuit to form an electoral circuit).

The Agreement also includes provisions related to the issue of
the CCM opinions and the authority of the Board of Directors, the
subject of Resolution 7-02A adopted by the 2004 Synod conven-
tion. The President will give priority to the Resolution 7-02A Com-
mittee created by the 2004 Synod convention by referencing the
committee’s work in his convention report, by including it in the
convention Workbook, and by allowing ample time for the conven-
tion floor committee to which the committee’s work is assigned to
present its report and resolutions to the convention. He will also
recommend to the convention the approval of a standing rule that
will allow 90 minutes of continuous consideration, presentation,

‘and debate of the resolution(s) pertaining to the 7-02A Commit-
tee’s report and will schedule the floor committee’s report for pre-
sentation in a session of the convention early enough to allow for
proper consideration of and action on its resolution(s) regarding the
Resolution 7-02A Committee’s report.

In the interest of peace and harmony in the Synod, neither the
plaintiffs nor the defendants will request of the other or of the Court
payment of their attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the lawsuit.

The resolution of this lawsuit was made possible by the recogni-
tion by all involved of the need to approach the task as fellow Chris-
tians intent upon resolving the matter for the good of the Synod and its
proclamation of the Gospel. The parties to this matter support the
agreements that have been made and the measures that will be taken
to satisfy the concerns that have been raised. They have pledged to
work together to effect the terms of the agreement.

Some have questioned the wisdom of the following portion of
the agreement dismissing the lawsuit: “In the interest of peace and
harmony in the Synod, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants will
request of the other or of the Court payment of their attorneys’ fees
and costs associated with the lawsuit.” This matter was discussed at
length, both during conversations between plaintiffs and Board of
Directors members and also in the Board of Directors itself.

Many members of the Board felt strongly that the Synod should
seek reimbursement of these fees from the plaintiffs who initiated
the lawsuit. Vice-President Diekelman and I were among them. Yet
as the conversations continued, two factors emerged that led to the
Board’s decision not to seek reimbursement. One factor was the
possibility that if the case were to go to court, a judge or jury could
make a decision forcing the Synod to pay plaintiff's legal fees. The
second factor was the difficulty in collecting legal fees from ap-
proximately 80 pastors and/or congregations, even were the court
to instruct the plaintiffs to reimburse the Synod’s legal costs. Many
of the plaintiffs were retired pastors, living on modest, fixed in-
comes. A few plaintiffs had even died after agreeing to file the law-
suit. Collecting legal fees from their widows and/or children was
not a viable option. So the decision was made, as the statement

says, because doing so seemed to be “in the interest of peace and
harmony in the Synod.”

Of significance in this case is the work of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters in reply to questions submitted to the Com-
mission regarding the appropriateness or lack thereof of members
of the Synod filing a lawsuit against other members of the Synod.
Following are excerpts from the minutes of the Nov. 28-29, 2005,
meeting of the Commission:

109. Proper Dissent and Dispute by Members of the Synod
(05-2444)

Question 1: Is it in harmony with the Constitution and Bylaws
(1.3, 1.4.1, 1.7, 1.8, 1.10, 3.1.1, and 3.1.6.2) of the
Synod for any member of the Synod or any group
within the Synod as an avenue or form of dissent
or dispute to engage in promoting non-compliance
with the resolutions of the Synod and making
charges against the Synod, the President, and oth-
ers of the Synod by use of lawsuits, publications,
letters, or meetings and conferences that are not in
keeping with the polity of the Synod as set forth in
the Constitution and Bylaws?

Opinion: No. Every member of the Synod (individual and con-
gregation) joins the Synod voluntarily and in doing so agrees to re-
late to, live, and serve together with one another (“walk together”)
in harmony with the Constitution and Bylaws...

In their agreement to live and work together in harmony (in har-
mony with the Constitution and Bylaws) the members of the
Synod, when and where disputes exist, are required, subject to lim-
ited exceptions, to use the avenue provided by the Synod to settle
disputes, as set forth in Bylaw section 1.10, “Dispute Resolution
of the Synod,” which in part states:

The Holy Scriptures (1 Cor. 6:1—7) urge Christians to settle their
differences by laying them before the “members of the brotherhood.”
Therefore, the Synod in the spirit of | Corinthians 6 calls upon all par-
ties to a disagreement, accusation, controversy, or disciplinary action
to rely exclusively and fully on the Synod’s system of reconciliation
and conflict resolution. The use of the Synod’s conflict resolution pro-
cedures shall be the exclusive and final remedy for those who are in dis-
pute. 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 section 1.8.
(Bylaw 1.10.1.1)

Therefore, all members of the Synod are required to resolve all
matters of dissent or all disputes by the avenues and structures
available to them as set forth in the Constitution and Bylaws of the
Synod without resorting to secular courts and without resorting to
avenues, means, structures, or communications that are foreign or
contrary to the synodical agreements and which are not in harmony
with the polity of the Synod.

Question 5: Is it in harmony with the Constitution and above
Bylaws of the Synod for any member of the Synod
to engage in dissenting (or promoting non-compli-
ance) against the Synod by use of a lawsuit, when
such members have not used the avenues of dis-
sent as set forth in Bylaw 1.8 of the Synod?

Opinion: No. A lawsuit is not a legitimate avenue of dissent. In
the agreement to live and work together, a member of the Synod is
required to follow the avenue of dissent as set forth in Bylaw sec-
tion 1.8, including honoring and upholding the resolutions of the
Synod. While a lawsuit may be an appropriate process in which to
resolve a dispute in the secular world, members of the Synod are
governed by Bylaw section 1.8 as the required, exclusive, and
agreed-to avenue of dissent and Bylaw section 1.10 as the required,
exclusive, and agreed-to method of dispute resolution.

2007 Convention Workbook