Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2010 · 64th Convention, Houston › Page 217
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 217
front matter 1
front matter 2
front matter 3
front matter 4
front matter 5
front matter 6
front matter 7
front matter 8
front matter 9
front matter 10
front matter 11
front matter 12
front matter 13
front matter 14
front matter 15
front matter 16
front matter 17
front matter 18
front matter 19
front matter 20
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
Page 166
Page 167
Page 168
Page 169
Page 170
Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
Page 184
Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
Ecclesial matters
7-16
To Overrule CCM Opinions on Ecclesiastical
Supervision
Whereas, The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM),
in its opinion “Consequences of Action Taken upon Approval
of Ecclesiastical Supervisor” (02-2296; 02-2320) stated, “The
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not allow or contemplate
the expulsion of a member of the Synod on the basis of an action
taken with the full knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor”; and
Whereas, In its opinion “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Conflict
of Interest” (02-2309), the CCM similarly stated that “the Synod is
precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of
its member who, when performing his or her official duties, follows
the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor” and, again,
that “the member who acted cannot be charged since he or she acted
according to the advice of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor”; and
Whereas, The Constitution of the Synod places substantial weight
on the need for doctrinal discipline to be carried out and for members
of the Synod to be held accountable for their own actions when it sets
forth “[c]onditions for acquiring and holding membership” (Article
VI) and when it states, “The Synod at all times has the right to call its
officers to account and, if circumstances require it, to remove them
from office” (Article XI A 2), and when it states, “Members who act
contrary to the confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI or persist in an offensive
conduct, shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the
Synod” (Article XIII 1); and
Whereas, These substantive constitutional arguments for doctrinal discipline may be thwarted by an appeal to the CCM opinions on
ecclesiastical supervision, which could be used to allow a member
of the Synod to violate the Constitution with impunity and immunity; and
Whereas , Opinions of the CCM are binding unless and until
“overruled by a convention of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.9.2.2); and
Whereas, Many districts, congregations, circuit forums, and pastors conferences submitted overtures to the Synod’s 2004 and 2007
conventions to overrule the CCM opinions on ecclesiastical supervision; and
Whereas, These overtures were not brought forward by the floor
committees for consideration by the 2004 and 2007 conventions; and
Whereas, The voice of so many districts, congregations, circuit
forums, and pastors conferences, all submitting similar overtures on
such a substantive constitutional matter, ought at least to be heard
in the form of a proposed resolution at the convention, particularly
when a convention vote is the only means available for overruling a
CCM opinion; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod overrule CCM Opinions 02-2296,
02-2320, and 02-2309.
St. Matthew, Bonne Terre, MO;
St. John, Owensville, MO;
Farmington Circuit Forum, Missouri District;
Good Shepherd, Arnold, MO
217
7-17
To Consider Adding Time Limitations to Dispute
Resolution Process
Whereas, It is God-pleasing that disputes, disagreements, or
offenses between Christians, Christian organizations, or between
Christians and Christian organizations be resolved in a God-pleasing
manner (Matt. 5:23–24); and
Whereas, The Synod has in place a dispute resolution process to
resolve such disputes as outlined in Bylaw section 1.10; and
Whereas, The needs of both sides in a dispute should be considered equally; and
Whereas, The process developed by the Synod admonishes that
disputes, disagreements, or offenses “should be resolved promptly”
(Bylaw 1.10.1); and
Whereas, The present process does not require either side in a dispute to initiate the formal process of dispute resolution within any
given time frame, thus possibly placing the potential respondent in a
position of never knowing if the dispute has been resolved or if action
may be taken at some undetermined date in the future; and
Whereas, It is possible through a process of stalling to greatly
extend the formal dispute resolution process beyond the stated time
limitations; and
Whereas, Unnecessary delays in resolving disputes can inflict
harm upon individuals and organizations; therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention direct the Secretary
of the Synod, in consultation with the CCM and the Council of
Presidents, to study this issue and report to the 2013 convention of the
Synod, making any recommendations that he believes would address
this situation and improve the dispute resolution process.
Northern Illinois District
7-18
To Post Standard Operating Procedures Manuals
on Synod Web Site
Whereas, A number of the Bylaws of the Synod call for the use of
a Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM); and
Whereas, Each SOPM gives clarification to the respective Bylaws
of the Synod; and
Whereas, The SOPMs are of benefit to members of the Synod in
understanding the Bylaws of the Synod; and
Whereas, Such SOPMs are not currently available on the Synod’s
Web site; therefore be it
Resolved, That the congregations of the Wyoming District in convention memorialize the Synod to post publicly on the Synod’s Web
site all current SOPMs that are referenced in the Synod’s Bylaws.
Wyoming District
7-19
To Require Use of Investigation Committee,
Reconciliation Committee, and Referral Panel in
Expulsion Processes
Whereas, Art. XIII “Expulsion from the Synod” mandates,
“Expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure
as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod” (Art. XIII 2); and
Whereas, Bylaw section 2.14 “Expulsion of Congregations or
Individuals from Membership in the Synod” prescribes a procedure
2010 Convention Workbook
2010 Convention.indb 217
4/15/10 2:39 PM