# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S264
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE

2.17.7 If the request for hearing as granted in Bylaw 2.17.6
(c) is made, the ecclesiastical supervisor shall inform the chair-
man of the Council of Presidents, who shall foes-e-Hearing
Panel-of-distriet-presidents request the Secretary of the Synod
to form a Hearing Panel of three hearing facilitators within 30

days of the request, in accordance with the provisions in this
bylaw.

2.17.7.2 A Hearing Panel consisting of three distet-presi-
dents hearing facilitators and one district president (excluding
the involved district presidents), selected as follows, shall con-
duct the hearing:

tiv names

ve hearing facili which will rw -
lesiasti rvisor who i =

who withi ma’ i ni
m remain 1

f i i aw.

ic i involved in th

2.17.7.3 Upon re receipt of a request for + hearing, the chairman
of the Council of Presidents shall promptly notify the accused
and the involved ecclesiastical supervisor of of shore reopeetive

2.17.7.5 Within | 15 5 days after the Hearing Panel i is consti-
tuted, #-she eg e 8 :

chairman shall then, after conferring with the accused and the
involved ecclesiastical supervisor, select a date within 45 days
after the Hearing Panel is constituted and select a location to de-
termine when and where the Hearing Panel will consider the
matter.

2.17.8.1 Within 30 days after receipt of the request, a Final
Hearing Panel shall be selected.

(a) The panel shall be selected in the same manner as de-
scribed in Bylaws 2.17.7-2.17.7.5, except that the district pres-
idents that constituted the Referral Panel and the district presi-
dent who served as chairman of the Hearing Panel or any other
involved district presidents are omitted from consideration for
the Final Hearing Panel.

(b) The procedures for the final hearing shall be the same
as prescribed in Bylaws 2.17.7.5-2.17.7.7.

(c) The chairman of the Hearing Panel shall provide the
Final Hearing Panel with a written statement of the matter and
the Hearing Panel’s report, minutes, records, and proceedings.

Southern I!linois District

8-17

To Change Mind about 2004 Res. 8-01A

Wuereas, In 2004, when the Synod adopted new procedures
for ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution (Res. 8-01 A), it
was acting on recommendations of a presidential task force that
had been made widely available only a few weeks before the con-
vention via the 2004 Convention Workbook (pp. 25-43); and

WHEREAS, Adopting such a large and complex set of bylaw
changes on short notice rarely, if ever, yields good results, and the
Bylaws approved under 2004 Res. 8-01A have shown themselves
to have a number of very serious flaws; and

WHEREAS, These Bylaws require that a face-to-face meeting
must precede any and all public rebuke of a public sin such as
teaching false doctrine (which would be a cause for expelling a
member from the Synod); and

WHEREAS, Citing Matt. 18:15, new Bylaw 2.14.3 (c) asserts that
the face-to-face meeting is a biblical requirement which must be
carried out also in “public” cases—despite biblical counterexam-
ples such as Gal. 2:11 ff. and the affirmation of the Lutheran Con-
fessions that “where the sin is so public that the judge and the
whole world are aware of it, you can without sin . . ..testify pub-
licly” concerning the offender (LC I 284); and

WHEREAS, Under 2004 Res. 8-01A our Synod adopted Bylaws
that fly in the face of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions; and

WHEREAS, The new Bylaws adopted under 2004 Res. 8-01A are
unwise as well as theologically unsound; and

WHEREAS, They establish panels to hear cases in which mem-
bers of the Synod might be expelled from membership in the Synod
panels that are composed entirely of district presidents. Thus, a
basic element of wise jurisprudence—trial by a group of one’s
peers—has been all but removed from our Synod’s process for han-
dling expulsion cases (only if a district president were in jeopardy
of removal would the case be heard by a group of his peers); and

WHEREAS, There is at least one other theological problem with the
Bylaws adopted under 2004 Res. 8-01 A: hearing panels are composed
entirely of district presidents. They have no other members, clergy or
lay. These panels hear all cases in which members of the Synod might
be expelled, including those involving false doctrine; and

WHEREAS, With the adoption of 2004 Res. 8-01A, and for the
first time in the history of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,
there can be no lay participation in deciding cases of false doctrine
at the Synod level; and

WHEREAS, At its previous convention in 2001, the Synod reaf-
firmed its first doctrinal statement, C. F. W. Walther’s Church and
Ministry, which says: “To the ministry of the Word, according to
divine right, belongs also the duty to judge doctrine, but laymen
also possess this right. Therefore, in the ecclesiastical courts and
councils they are accorded both a seat and vote together with the
clergy” (thesis 10 on the Ministry); thus, 2004 Res. 8-01A contra-
dicts the Synod’s oldest and most recently reaffirmed doctrinal
statement; therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2006 Minnesota South District convention
memorializes the LCMS in convention (a) to change its mind about
Res. 8-01A, rescinding ail the Bylaws adopted under that resolution
and reinstating all the previous Bylaws superseded by Res. 8-01A in
2004, and (b) to assign the Commission on Structure to review the
entire matter of ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution and
report to the Synod any recommendations for needed change at
least one calendar year before they are to be considered at a Synod
convention.

Minnesota South District; Western Regional Pastors’
Conference, Missouri District

8-18

To Reconsider 2004 Res. 8-01A

WHEREAS, In 2004 Res. 8-01A the Synod adopted new proce-
dures for ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution; and