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

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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