LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 62

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

62

SYNOD REPORTS

Councils) may indeed err, but God and His Word do not err. Synod
may well determine that someone is guilty or not guilty of an action
against God, but God will be the final judge. Synod’s sanctions are
no guarantee of divine sanctions.
Therefore, individuals and congregations who are members of
Synod must indeed obey God above men. The question about human
rules is whether they hinder us from obeying God. It is the contention of this opinion that the rulings in question do not prevent or
discourage obedience to God, but we commend those who submitted
overtures for their legitimate questions regarding such a perennially
important concern.
Dispute Resolution

Bylaw 1.10, “Dispute Resolution of the Synod,” was established
due to “grave concern for the whole church,” over conflicts within
the church (Bylaw 1.10.1, citing Matt. 5:23–24; Eph. 4:26–27). The
preamble to 1.10 is established on biblical admonitions to practice
the humility of our Lord (Phil. 2:5), to resolve conflict within the fellowship of faith rather than by means of governmental courts (1 Cor.
6:1–7), to be guided by Matthew 18:15–20 in matters of discipline
in the wider church and not only the congregation, to seek lovingly
in all disputes to exercise a “ministry of reconciliation” and restoration of erring members rather than adversarial practices (2 Cor. 5:18;
Gal. 6:1), and to hold to “the justification of the sinner through grace
in Christ Jesus” as the “heart and center” of that reconciling ministry
whereby conflict is resolved in a God-pleasing manner, asking for
and extending the forgiveness of sins in our dealings with each other
(see Bylaws 1.10.1.1–6).
From the CTCR’s perspective, the procedures outlined by the dispute resolution bylaw address the theological concerns of the 2007
overtures in the following ways:
1. While the focus of the bylaw is disputes and not “procedures
for expulsion from membership” (Bylaw 1.10.3), it emphatically encourages face-to-face interactions between disputing
individuals, without any distinction as to the office or position those individuals hold (e.g., Bylaw 1.10.5). This recurring
stipulation to some extent addresses the worry that Synod has
established a system of ecclesiastical supervision which allows
partiality. If an individual is concerned with a fellow member’s
conduct or that of an ecclesiastical supervisor, he may (and
should) speak face-to-face to the individual in loving, fraternal admonition. This important responsibility is not abrogated,
but is reinforced by the Synod’s 2004 action and acts as a check
against potential pretentiousness on the part of one in a position
of authority. One may also note in this context that a later CCM
consideration of concerns regarding Opinion 02-2309 clarifies
this same matter: “The Commission has never opined that one
brother should be denied the right or responsibility to admonish another brother over matters of the soul.” (See “Opinions
of Commission on Constitutional Matters,” “Concerns re
Opinion 02-2309 [03-2338B],” adopted Aug. 15–16, 2003;
2004 Convention Workbook, p. 365. Note: Opinion 02-2309
did affirm and the CCM reaffirmed the principle that ecclesiastical supervision is only “to be provided by those whom
the Synod has given that responsibility in its Constitution and
Bylaws.”)
2. In the dispute resolution process, the possibility of undue
influence (partiality) on the part of ecclesiastical supervisors
is limited by the fact that the administrator of the dispute resolution process is the secretary of the Synod or district and
not either a Synod or district president (ecclesiastical supervisors of Synod officers and districts respectively). (See Bylaw

1.10.6.)
3. The right of appeal of dispute resolution decisions is clearly
preserved (Bylaw 1.10.8). In so doing, yet another check exists
to prevent partiality in decisions affecting the well-being of
Christ’s holy people as they seek to live in accordance with
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
4. The dispute resolution process makes provision for the disqualification of those who would serve as potential reconcilers,
panel members, or hearing facilitators (all the positions of
judgment regarding disputes; see Bylaw 1.10.16). This section of the bylaw explicitly allows for disqualification in the
instance of “actual partiality or the appearance thereof.” Once
again, a vitally important check is created against favoritism
or special treatment or any “respecting of persons.”
Ecclesiastical Supervision

2004 Bylaws 2.12 and 2.13 (referenced in 2007 Res. 8-10) specifically address the matter of ecclesiastical supervision, the focus of
the overtures’ concerns. For the sake of clarity, it may be helpful to
point out changes between the 2004 and 2007 versions of the Synod’s
Bylaws that are relevant to this consideration.
• The Preamble to 2004 Bylaw 2.13 (“Restricting, Suspending,
and Expelling Congregations or Individuals from
Membership”) was added to 2004 Bylaw 2.14 (“Expulsion of
Congregations or Individuals from Membership in the Synod”)
in formulating 2007 Bylaw 2.14 (without other change of
content).
• 2007 Bylaw 2.13 (“Membership Status and Limitations”)
includes all the remaining procedures from 2004 Bylaw 2.13
(“Restricting, Suspending, and Expelling Congregations or
Individuals from Membership”).
• 2007 Bylaw 2.13 (“Membership Status and Limitations”) now
begins with a section titled “Specific Ministry Pastor Status
and Limitations” (2.13.1). The 2004 Bylaw 2.13.1 was the
“Preamble,” which has been added as the first paragraph in
the preamble to 2007 Bylaw 2.14.
• References hereafter are to the relevant bylaws as they appear
in the 2007 Handbook of Synod, not to the 2004 bylaws as they
are identified in the overtures.
• Finally, while 2007 Res. 8-10 directs the commission to consider how Bylaws 2.12 and 2.13 “impact” the theological
issues raised, 2004 Bylaws 2.14, 2.15, and 2.16 are also relevant to this discussion and must be referenced.
Current handbook provisions regarding the expulsion of members
of the Synod, from congregations, to individuals, to Synod officers
(including a district president), to the President of Synod, have been
in place since the 2004 convention. The following aspects of ecclesiastical supervision seem to be relevant to the theological concerns
of 2007 Overtures 8-47 through 8-57:
1. Bylaw 2.14.1 Preamble states that termination of membership “should only be taken as a final step” after admonition
has failed and a Synod member persists in violating its confession (Constitution Article II) or its conditions of membership
(Article VI) or has persisted in offensive conduct (Article XIII).
The entire bylaw, as well as Bylaws 2.15 and 2.16 provide the
procedure for the way in which ecclesiastical supervision is to
take place in the Synod. What is clear is that the procedure presupposes fidelity to Scripture and the Lutheran confessions by
all Synod’s members, whether in positions of authority or under
authority. This presupposition clearly addresses any theological concern that Synod’s procedures encourage partiality.

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 62

4/15/10 2:38 PM