# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S265
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE 265

WHEREAS, Adopting such a large and complex set of bylaw
changes on short notice has yielded confusing results, such as in
citing Matt. 18:15, the 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 counterexamples, such as
in Gal. 2:1ff and the affirmation of the Lutheran Confessions that
“where the sin is so public that the judge and the whole world are
aware of it, you can without sin...testify publicly” concerning the
offender (LC); and

Wuereas, The new bylaws adopted under Res. 8-01A establish
panels to hear cases in which members of the Synod might be ex-
pelled from Synod membership. These panels are composed en-
tirely of district presidents and have no other members, clergy or
lay; and

WHEREAS, These panels hear all cases in which members of the
Synod might be expelled, including those involving false doctrine.
At a previous convention in 2001, the Synod reaffirmed 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 ecclesiastical courts and councils
they are accorded both a seat and a vote together with the clergy”
(Thesis X); therefore be it

Resolved, That the South Dakota District convention memorial-
ize the LCMS convention to reconsider Res. 8-01 A.

South Dakota District

8-19

To Re-examine Res. 8-01A in Light of CTCR Document

Wuereas, 2004 Synod Res. 8-01A, “To Amend Bylaws on Ec-
clesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution,” removes a con-
gregation’s and a pastor’s right to initiate formal proceedings
against a member of the Synod based on the Word of God by plac-
ing that power solely at the discretion of the district presidents and
the President of the Synod; and

WHEREAS, The Word of God holds each of us accountable to it
first and foremost, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts
5:29); and

WHEREAS, Lay people and parish pastors have a right to expect
members of the Synod to be held accountable to the Word of God,
and to test their teaching, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but
test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1); and

Wuereas, The May 2006 report of the CTCR entitled Public
Rebuke of Public Sin concluded in part, “If those charged with ec-
clesiastical supervision fail to carry out their duties and responsi-
bilities, public rebuke may be pursued by any Christian” (p. 27);
therefore be it

Resolved, 2004 Synod Res. 8-01A be amended to reflect the
listed conclusion of the CTCR.

Trinity
Austin, TX

8-20

To Modify 2004 Res. 8-01A

WHEREAS, After the passage of 2004 Res, 8-01A, the accuser
can no longer appeal to the Praesidium of the Synod and this does
not help the concern for justice; and

WHEREAS, After the passage of 2004 Res. 8-01A, “If Bylaw sec-
tion 2.14 applies, the district president shall ensure that the accuser
has carried out the guidelines of Matthew 18:15 face-to-face with
the accused. Even if the alleged violation of Article XIII of the
Constitution is considered to be ‘public,’ this provision of Matthew
18:15 shall be followed. The reputation of all parties is to be pro-
tected as commanded in the Eighth Commandment” (Bylaw 2.14.3
[c]); and

WHEREAS, This interpretation of Matthew 18, in which there is
no distinction made between public and private sins, disregards

what the Book of Concord says in the Large Catechism. “All this
[concern for following Matt. 18] has been said regarding secret
sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and every-
body know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go,
because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also
publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the
light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testify-
ing; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is
publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For
where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every
one may learn to guard against it” (284); therefore be it

Resolved, That the 2006 Southern Illinois District convention
memorialize the 2007 LCMS convention to establish an appeals
process for the accuser to the Praesidium of the Synod if the ac-
cuser has been denied formal proceedings; and be it further

Resolved, That one who is accused of a public offense must be
addressed personally by the accuser but that a face-to-face meet-
ing with the accused is not required.

Southern Illinois District

8-21

To Rescind 2004 Res. 8-01A and Handbook Revisions

Wuereas, Resolution 8-01A of the 2004 LCMS convention
deals with ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution between
members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which may
lead to the restricting, suspending, and expelling of members of the
Synod, as well as the removal of members of Synod from elected
positions within the LCMS; and

Wuereas, Expulsion from the Synod, though it “is a serious
matter involving both the doctrine and life of those to whom it has
been granted” (Bylaw 2.13.1), is nevertheless to be distinguished
from the necessary practice of church discipline, which is the pre-
rogative and responsibility of congregations (cf. LCMS Constitu-
tion, Art. XIII 3); and

WHEREAS, Resolution 8-01A, and now the Handbook Bylaws
2.13—2.17, appear to confuse the Synod’s protocols of ecclesiastical
supervision and dispute resolution with the congregational prerog-
atives and responsibilities of church discipline, especially by fre-
quent reference to Matt. 18:15-16 (cited over two dozen times in
the body of the resolution); and

WHEREAS, the actual use of Matt. 18 in Res. 8-01A is question-
able-and appears to be inconsistent; in citing only verses 15 and 16,
the words of our Lord are prematurely cut off; then again, there are
times when the resolution arbitrarily sets aside the procedures of
Matt. 18, for example, by specifying “consultation” with the district
president prior to the provisions of Matt. 18 (Bylaw 2.14.3), and
by waiving the requirement of a “face-to-face” meeting with the
accused in cases of sexual misconduct or criminal behavior (Bylaw
2.17.3 [d]); and

WHEREAS, Particular concerns have been raised by the explicit
statement that “Even if the alleged violation of Art. XIII of the
Constitution is considered to be ‘public,’ this provision of Matt.
18:15 shall be followed” (Bylaw 2.14.3 [c]), which gives every ap-
pearance of contradicting the plain words of the Large Catechism,
wherein “public” and “private” sins are specifically distinguished
and addressed in quite different ways (LC I, Eighth Command-
ment, paragraph 284); and

WHEREAS, The 2004 LCMS convention Floor Committee 8,
after Res. 8-01A had already been adopted, recognized a need to
clarify that “These specific expulsion provisions and dispute reso-
lution provisions do not in any way prohibit dealing with public sin
and admonition in other situations and according to the explana-
tion of the 8th Commandment in the Large Catechism,” and that
“It was the floor committee’s intent that these bylaws simply re-
flect that the Synod desires that fact-to-face brotherly and evangel-
ical procedures be used when expulsion from membership is the
issue and when dispute resolution is involved” (2004 LCMS Con-
vention Minutes, Proceedings, p. 438); however, the language now
included in the Bylaws from Resolution 8-01A remains confusing