LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 260

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

260 STRUCTURE, PLANNING, AND ADMINISTRATION

or “others”(NIV), thereby changing the meaning of Jesus’ com-
mand; and

WHEREAS, Bylaw 8.07 e by the statement: “With the approval of
the reconcilers, each party may, in the manner described in Matt.
18:16, bring one or two persons to the meeting”; first, grants the
absolute right to the reconcilers to withhold approval; and second,
in using the term may, defined in Bylaw 8.03 as “permissive,” are
contrary to Matthew 18:16 which again is a command of Jesus:
“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be es-
tablished.(KJV); and

WHEREAS, The restriction on the congregation’s right of self-
government as expressed in Bylaw 8.11 (1995 and 1992 Hand-
books) as well as in former Bylaw 8.09 (1989 Handbook) are in
violation of and contrary to both Constitution Art. VII and Bylaw
15.01 a, “not contrary to the Constitution”; and

Wuereas, The denial of due process instituted by this radical
change is contrary to Scripture and the Confessions; and

WHEREAS, There are too many faults discernible in the current
Bylaw to be corrected in a piecemeal approach, in part due to link-
age to other Bylaws; therefore be it

Resolved, That the current provisions of Bylaw VIII be re-
pealed; and be it further

Resolved, That Bylaw VIII be amended to restore the provisions
of said Bylaw as found in the 1989 Handbook; and be it finally

Resolved, That the restriction on the congregation’s right of self-
government as expressed in former Bylaw 8.09 (1989 Handbook),
being in violation of and contrary to both Constitution Art. VII and
Bylaw 15.01 a, “not contrary to the Constitution” be not restored.

Our Redeemer
Peekskill, NY

7-65

To Return to Previous Structure for Adjudication
and Reaffirm Absolute Authority
of Commission on Appeals

WHEREAS, The present “win-win” structure of our synodical ad-
judication process does not establish right and wrong either ac-
cording to the Bible or according to our synodical Constitution; and

WHEREAS, In God’s Word we see clearly that there is a “right
and wrong” (we were wrong and it took the blood of the Savior to
make us one with God); and

WHEREAS, We as a Synod need to not only give lip service to
the justice of God, but to also live and lead according to His Word;
and

WHEREAS, It is in the best interest of Synod that such adjudica-
tors be duly elected; therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod return
to the previous system for adjudication.

St. John
Waterbury, CT

7-66

To Return to Former System of Adjudication

WHEREAS, The former system of adjudication and appeal served
our Synod well for many years, dealing justly with complaints and
disputes; and

WHEREAS, That system had all the advantages of the present
system, requiring informal settlement efforts before taking a matter
to adjudication; and

WHEREAS, The present system seeks a win-win resolution to dis-
putes, when, in fact, there are many situations in which a win-win
resolution is not possible or desirable, such as when a person in-
sists that his false doctrine is acceptable and true, or when a deci-
sion must be made to correct a wrong done by one party against

another, or when an injustice by an official against a pastor or other
member of the Synod, such as a congregation, must be corrected;
therefore be it

Resolved, That the present system of reconciliation be replaced
with the former system of adjudication and appeal, and that the pres-
ent chapter VIII of the Bylaws be replaced by chapter VIII of the
1986 Handbook of the Synod; and be it further

Resolved, That this change take effect immediately upon the
election of members of District commissions on adjudication in the
District conventions of the year 2000; and be it further

Resolved, That matters that would ordinarily be handled by the
synodical Commission on Adjudication be handled by the District
commission in which the case is located until the election of a syn-
odical Commission on Adjudication; and be it further

Resolved, That if a case involves litigants from two different
Districts or if it is a case for synodical adjudication and the litigants
are from different Districts, the commission hearing the case shall
be made up of equal numbers of members from each of the two
Districts until the election of synodical Commissions on Adjudica-
tion and Appeal; and be it further

Resolved, That, until the election of a synodical Commission on
Appeals, the Commission on Appeals shall be made up of mem-
bers of District Commissions on Adjudication chosen by a blind
draw by the President of the Synod when cases for such commis-
sion arise; and be it finally

Resolved, That elections for a synodical Commission on Adju-
dication and a Commission on Appeals be held at the 2001 synod-
ical convention, and that those elected will take office immediately
upon election.

Grace
Fairgrove, MI

7-67

To Return to Former Structure
of Adjudication for Dispute Resolution

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

WHEREAS, District Presidents are not bound by the Handbook
to adhere to the ruling of the reconciler; 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

WHEREAS, Dispute resolution does not adhere to or take serious
the doctrines of original sin, the two kingdoms, and the church mil-
itant, 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 an 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