LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 259

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION 259

7-61

To Return to Former Structure of Adjudication

WHEREAS, The current system of dispute resolution is a process
adopted from secular and not biblical sources; and

WHEREAS, Those who seek to use this process often find their
cases being “reconciled” by people who have little or no theologi-
cal or legal expertise; and

Wrereas, District presidents are not bound by the Handbook
to adhere to the ruling of the reconciler, such as the ruling in Michi-
gan that one of the three creeds and not one of the pastor’s inven-
tion be used during Communion services, and such as the Central
Illinois District President who refuses to lift suspended status from
a congregation and pastor in the District after rulings of such re-
lease was issued by the “reconcilers,” etc.; and

WHEREAS, The minutes of the reconciliation are not required
and often are not kept; and

WHEREAS, It is scripturally impossible to reconcile good and
evil so that both parties in a dispute are perceived winners; and

Wuereas, Dispute resolution does not adhere to or take seri-
ously the doctrines of original sin, the two kingdoms, and the
church militant, etc.; and

WHEREAS, The dispute resolution process has many injustices
within the system and is weighted in favor of District Presidents
and against those who are accused, restricted, or suspended by a
District President; and

WHEREAS, The ruling of the reconciler is often based on the ar-
bitrary opinions of psychology and personal bias not tolerated in
society at large; and

WHEREAS, Decisions of the reconciler are not bound to specific
citations from Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the writ-
ings of C. F. W. Walther on church and ministry adopted by the
convention; and

WHEREAS, The dispute resolution process has shown itself to be
based more on the subjectivity of the reconciler rather than on ob-
jective and printed basis for settling disputes; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod return to the former structure of adju-
dication prior to 1992; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod does not wish to maintain a system
prone to the weaknesses observed in the Sanhedrin when they tried
Christ and the apostles; and be it finally

Resolved, That there be a strict adherence to the rules of evi-
dence and law that all may perceive that the LCMS seeks and up-
holds truth and justice in all its disputes, thus leading to a God-
pleasing renunciation of sin that can only be resolved with
repentance and absolution in the church.

Immanuel, Peoria IL; Redeemer, St. Clair Shores, MI;
Immanuel, Peoria, IL; Trinity, Denver, CO

7-62

To Return to 1986 Bylaws on Adjudication

WHEREAS, Section VIII of the Bylaws “Synodical Dispute Res-
olution” as enacted by the 1992 synodical convention and as
amended by the synodical convention in 1995 denies members of
Synod due process, does not provide for free election of qualified
persons to hear and evaluate evidence in disputes involving mem-
bers of Synod, does not provide adequate safeguards for recision
of “reconcilers” with actual animus or the appearance of personal
animus toward a member of Synod whose cases they may be re-
quired to hear, permits hearsay evidence for consideration, does not
have a published rule of procedure; and

WHEREAS, The deficiencies in Section VIII of the Bylaws are
an affront to basic rights guaranteed by American civil law and
legal process; therefore be it

Resolved, That Section VIII of the Bylaws in the 1995 edition
of Handbook be abolished; and be it further

Resolved, That Section VIII of the Bylaws in the 1986 edition
of the Handbook (pp. 127-33) be enacted as the synodical adjudi-
cation process.

St. Paul Evangelical, Paterson. NJ; Immanuel, Clovis, NM;
St. Peter, Swanville, MN

7-63

To Restore Former Adjudication Process

WHEREAS, Prior to 1992, the Synod was blessed with a system
of dispute resolution that was deemed to be biblical and fair and
that safeguarded the individual member of Synod’s rights, in spite
of the fact that the Synod did not always prevail in disputes against
individual members; and

WHEREAS, Prior to 1992 the Commission of Adjudication and
the Commission on Appeals was elected by the synodical conven-
tion in a process deemed to be biblical and impartial, and now
“Reconcilers” are appointed; and

WHEREAS, There is no guarantee that the “Dispute Resolution
Panels” will include pastors, in spite of the Augsburg Confession
XXVIII 21 which says that the jurisdiction to judge doctrine and
to reject doctrines contrary to the Gospel belongs to the office of
the ministry by divine right; and

WHEREAS, The current system of dispute resolution denies the
accused the right to have counsel present during the dispute
process, a process that could result in the loss of the member’s call-
ing and means of livelihood, thus making the current system inher-
ently unfair; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod in convention return to the former
system of adjudication as found in the 1989 Handbook immedi-
ately upon ratification of this resolution and reject the current sys-
tem found in the 1995 Handbook.

Hope
Akron, OH

To Repeal Resolutions Adopted
Establishing Synodical Dispute Resolution

WHEREAS, The Synod’s action in the 1992 convention substi-
tuting this new procedure, as found in Bylaw VIII, for the former
Adjudication and Appeals process was opposed by more than one-
third (33.7%) of those delegates voting; and

WHEREAS, The merits of the “win-win” are truly doubtful since
compromise means that one or the other party must give up some-
thing and, thereby, lose; and

WHEREAS, There has been no report indicating that a single case
had in fact resulted in such a “win-win” outcome; and

WHEREAS, 1992 Res. 5-01B: “Preface ...” stated “that: ... (e) is
less costly in terms of money and time”; without providing sup-
porting data or even estimates, and no information has been pro-
vided to the members of the Synod since that time validating this
claim “is less costly in terms of money and time’, and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 8.13 a states, in part: “They [reconcilers] shall
be people ‘of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom’
(Acts 6:3)”, and Bylaw 8.15 b states, in part, “. . . “consist of three
persons”; and

WHEREAS, The term “people” is used with the citation of “(Acts
6:3)” in Bylaw 8.13 a but this passage actually reads: “Wherefore,
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of
the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this busi-
ness” (KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV), and this substitution of “people”
and “persons” for “men” has resulted in the scripturally improper
appointments of women to serve as judges (reconcilers) as taught in
1 Tim. 2:11, 12; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 8.07 e substitutes the citation: “in Matt. 18:16,
bring one or two persons” for “bring thee one or two more”(KJV)