LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1983, Page 182

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

182 RESOLUTIONS

congregations, different views have been expressed. For
example, the Synod has set up an elaborate and expensive
procedure in Chapter 8 of the Bylaws to deal with disputes.
Chapter 8 is again before this convention for fine-tuning. The
Synod has thus signaled that it thinks it can resolve disputes,
not just dabble in them with hope but no assurance that it can
do so. Others see relationships in the Synod as being organiza-
tionally so voluntary and noncommittal, within congregations
and also beyond, as to not permit us to make binding and
enforceable decisions on disputes.

May we agree, as a matter of common consent, to put aside
any preconceived notions about the words “congregational”
and “hierarchical” each time we read those words in the
resolution? I think that is essential, if we are to be able to
address the real issues. After all, if you always associate the
word “good” with “congregational” and the word “evil” with
“hierarchical,” it would be ridiculous for me to stand here
before you and endeavor to persuade you that something which
is evil is, nonetheless, acceptable under certain circumstances.

Perhaps it would be useful to mentally substitute phrases in
place of the words “congregational” and “hierarchical.” |
would like to suggest for the word “hierarchical” the phrase
“we, ourselves, with the help of God, can resolve the dispute”
and for the word “congregational” the phrase “we, even with
the help of God, choose not to resolve the dispute.” For me, in
any event, this best describes the true meaning of proposed
Res. 5-10A.

If we’re together so far, let’s proceed by considering the
following three questions:

1) What is the context within which there may be disputes
as to which Res. 5-10A might have some significance?

2) Is a process for resolving disputes within the Synod
important, and is it desirable that there be a high level of
assurance that the process can be applied to a meaningful
conclusion?

3) What are the other alternatives for dealing with disputes
within the Synod?

What Is the Context?

1. The issues in disputes in which 5-10A might have some
significance are those which a civil law court is capable of
deciding. For example, a civil court may decide ownership or
right to use property, or contract rights and obligations. But a
civil court will not decide whether the Scriptures are inerrant,
whether a particular translation of a Biblical passage is
correct, or whether the use of certain words in a hymn or in
liturgy is wrong. However, a civil court may be called upon to
decide a property or contract question which has been raised
because the contending parties disagree on a theological
question; it is this situation in which you, as voting delegates,
are being asked to say whether the Synod should declare that
“we, ourselves, with the help of God, can resolve the dispute” or
that “we, even with the help of God, choose not to resolve the
dispute.”

2. The Synod, whose polity is being addressed by proposed
Res. 5-10A, is the whole synodical union made up of congrega-
tions, pastors, teachers, component parts such as Districts,
seminaries and colleges, and a variety of officers, boards, and
commissions who aid the others in carrying out the Objectives
described in Article III of the Constitution, in keeping with the
Confession referred to in Article IT of the Constitution.

a) Do not be misled into believing that Res. 5-10A will give
theSynod as a “servant” organization a position of superiority
with respect to a congregation. Even if the resolution purported
to do that (which it does not), it could not stand in the face of
Article VII of the Constitution, which assures that “the Synod
is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or
coercive powers, and with respect to the individual congrega-
tion’s right of self-government it is but an advisory body,” or
even the Bylaws, including Bylaw 1.19(c), which states
unequivocally that “membership of a congregation in the
Synod gives the Synod no equity in the property of the
congregation.”

b) The contending parties to which this resolution will
have an effect are those factions within a given congregation
which disagree on a particular point. In that regard, each

congregation which is now a member of the Synod or might
subsequently become a member has the right to establish for
itself how its future disputes, including those involving theo-
logical issues, will be resolved. It may by deeds, agreements,
and other writings establish either a result or a procedure
which the civil courts would enforce under the “neutral
principles of law” referred to in proposed Res. 5-10A. (More will
be said about this a little later.) It is when the congregation has
failed to adequately provide its own remedies or procedures
that thereisa dispute to which Res. 5-10A would be significant.

Is There a Need for an Assured Process?

So much can be said about this subject that it would be
foolhardy for me to endeavor here to make statements aboutit.
Rather, I will ask a number of additional questions which you
should try to answer as you consider the meaning and applica-
tion of the entire resolution:

1. Should St. Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 6:1-5:

When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go

to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know
that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged

that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to
this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before
those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your
shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to
decide between members of the brotherhood . . .?

only be applicable on an ad hoc basis, or should it be possible
for Christians, whether or not gathered together in an organi-
zation, to be able to agree in advance of any dispute as toa
process for deciding that dispute?

2. Should one side toa dispute be able to “win” simply by
refusing to participate in a process that had been previously
agreed upon? Or to ask it in a different way, should the side
which is less strong, but not necessarily wrong, be relegated to
seeking to plead and persuade, but otherwise be forced to accept
what is handed to it?

3. Is it right to use the relationship between the Synod
“servant” organization and member congregations to prevent
the previously agreed-upon adjudication/appeals process from
being used to resolve a dispute within a congregation?

4. Is it appropriate to believe that all individuals elected or
appointed to Commissions on Adjudication and aCommission
on Appeals will be biased automatically to one side of a
dispute? Is there any known case history to support a claim
even that members of such commissions are inclined to find for
one side as opposed to the other? Did the Christians in Corinth
have a better track record?

What Are the Alternatives?

1. Whenever a dispute arises as to which there is a conten-
tion by the side with the greatest number of votes that there is a
central theological question, that side could automatically be
deemed the winner merely by virtue of its own declaration that
there is a theological issue. Individuals who contribute efforts
and money to congregations, for current mission and ministry
or for capital im Provements, would then do so with the
knowledge that the congregation can, by a simple majority
vote at any given time, change by a little or a lot the direction of
the congregation as well as that for which it stands. .

A congregation can, in order to providea greater level of
stability than that under alternative No. 1, require a vote larger
than a simple majority, a longer notice of meetings, or discus-
sion at two or more meetings before a vote can be taken, or it
can establish other safeguards, all with respect to certain
enumerated potential issues. Members would still be on notice
that their efforts and contributions can be diverted, either
because all the safeguards still produce the requisite vote, or
because a certain issue was not anticipated and so not enumer-
ated among those to which the safeguards apply.

3. It is not an alternative in most cases for an individual
who is unhappy with the first two alternatives to stipulate his
or her own conditions. F irst, it is impossible to attach condi-
tions to the application of time, talent, and efforts on behalf of
the church. As to gifts of money or property, very often an
alleged deviation from the stipulated conditions will involve a