LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 296

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

296 NATIONAL/DISTRICT SYNOD RELATIONS

8-34

To Change Functions of Council of Presidents,
District Presidents, Dispute Resolution Process

WHEREAS, Over the past 20 to 30 years some District Presidents
in the LCMS have influenced the Council of Presidents to accu-
mulate enormous power in themselves, which powers are currently
defined as follows:

They appoint members of the Concordia Universily System,
members of the Conference of Congregalional Services, mem-
bers of the Council on Mission and Ministry, members of the
Board of Regents of colleges and seminaries, one-quarter of the
members of the Commission on Theology and Church Rela-
tions, and all the members of the Commission on Constitutional
Matiers (CCM). This means that the CCM is definilely a subor-
dinate agency of the Council of Presidents, whose control thus
extends lo the final decision in all appealed dispute cases and to
the approval of congregational constitutions;

WHEREAS, District Presidents have been allocating their time
and energy in discharging their responsibilities in the foregoing ac-
tivities to the detriment of their duties in the District of the LCMS
that they have been elected to perform; and

WHEREAS, Some District Presidents in the LCMS have assumed
and exercised extraordinary actions concerning a pastor and the
congregation he served, which does not involve charges of sexual
misconduct with minors or counsclees or propensity to assault, and
in so doing have attempted to chastise a pastor in a congregation
and the congregation itself for allegedly pursuing a doctrinal posi-
tion other than that of the District President. Notwithstanding that
the dispute resolution process of the LCMS resolved the issue in
tavor of the pastor and the congregation, the District President re-
fused to comply with the decision of the dispute resolution process;
and

WHEREAS, The LCMS experienced rapid growth during the pe-
riod from 1940 to about 1975, and Franklin Littell of Temple Uni-
versity wrote in a 1976 atlas entitled The Macmillan Atlas History
of Christianity about the LCMS:

Church growth today seems to be a function of lay initiative
and lay initiative seems to be most vigorous in those churches
which have no strong hierarchies or judicatories. ...

One of the most rapidly growing churches is The Lutheran
Chureh—Missouri Synod which has in the last fitteen years
added nearly 600,000 members. Since 1940 it has shown a
120% increase, while the more liberal Lutheran churches have
registered fess than 60% increase. ... Under (Walther’s) leader-
ship an extensive system of parochial schools was inaugurated.
In 1872 a Lutheran Synodical Conference came into being
which united several conservative groups which stressed the re-
sponsibility and initiative of members of local congregations.

Littell stated that the most important cause of growth is decen-
tralized policy, which he properly defines as those churches that
have no strong hierarchies or judicatories. The term “judicatory”
means a system of courts of law for the administration of justice.

Rev. Martin R. Noland, in his address to the Association of
Confessional Lutherans on April 4, 1997, in Chicago stated:

The survival of Biblical and confessional theology in the
Missouri Synod was chiefly a result of its decentralized policy,
not of any particular virtues in its membership or even its theol-
ogy:

WHEREAS, Fulfilling the mission of the LCMS in saving souls
for Jesus Christ is best served by a church structure that vests au-
thority to solve congregational disputes solely within a congrega-
tion, even if it includes church workers, unless both parties to a
case voluntarily agree to use the synodical process; therefore be it

Resolved, That our church does hereby request that the LCMS
in convention in 2001 adopt the following recommendations:

First, the Synod should eliminate all powers of the organization
known as the Council of Presidents except for their role as the
Board of Assignments and Certification. The Synod should elimi-
nate particularly their powers of appointment to synodical offices.

2001 Convention Workbook

Second. the Synod should restore the rule that all officers of the
Synod and District can only assume such rights as have been ex-
pressly conferred upon them by the Synod. This is directed against
the September | 972 ruling of CCM on presidential authority.

Third, the Synod should have the District reconcilers elected by
the District conventions from a slate proposed by the regular nom-
inations committee, instead of having them appointed by a District
Board of Directors.

Fourth, the Synod should have al] members of the Commission
on Constitutional Matters elected by synodica! convention from a
slate proposed by the regular nominations committee, instead of
having them chosen by the Council of Presidents. Present members
on the CCM should be retired since they represent a different con-
stituency.

Fifth, the bylaws should be changed so that all congregational
disputes are resolved solely within congregations, even if it in-
cludes church workers, unless both parties to a case voluntarily
agree to use the synodical process.

Sixth, the Synod should mandate that due process be observed
by limiting the District President’s use of restriction and suspen-
sion to church workers who have previously been found guilty by
the dispute resolution process. This revision would include extra-
ordinary and immediate powers of suspensions when charges of
sexual misconduct with minors or counselees or propensity to as-
sault have been filed.

Seventh, the Synod should mandate term limits for all District
Presidents and executives.

Eighth, the Synod should return to the practice of District Pres-
idents visiting every congregation within three years. This would
necessitate the division of larger Districts into smaller units in some
cases to make this manageable.

Our Savior, Fullerton, CA; Redeemer, St. Clair Shorcs,
MI; Trinity, New Haven, MO; St. Paul, Chicago Heights,
IL; Immanuel, San Antonio, TX; Peace, Neenah, WI;
Faith, Corning, NY; Trinity, Bridgeton, MO; Gloria Dei,
Chicago, IL; Immanuel. Dimock, SD; Redeemer, John
Day, OR; St. Paul, Mondovi, WI: Our Redeemer, Cushing,
OK; St. Paul, Iron River, MI; St. Paul, Memphis, MO; Our
Saviour, Monticello, IN

8-35

To Decline Task Force Proposal re Council
of Presidents

WHEREAS, The Council of Presidents carries “out such assign-
ments as the Synod may give to the council from time to time” in
accordance with present Bylaw 3.930 f; and

WHEREAS, Such assignments currently include a number of ac-
tivities, such as the selection of synodical convention location, ap-
pointment or selection of members to various boards and commis-
sions, and so on, which require action by the Council of Presidents
only once during a triennium; and

WHEREAS, The current appointment procedures are quite ade-
quate and help preserve a balance of power between the various
elective and appointing authorities; therefore be it

Resolved, That the present Bylaw provisions concerning the
Council of Presidents be retained and the Task Force recommen-
dations regarding this issue be respecttully declined.

First, Willows, CA; St. Paul, Artois, CA

8-36

To Reject Proposals to Alter Role of COP

WHEREAS, The responsibility of appointing members of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations is not a burden or
a heavy workload for the LCMS Council of Presidents (contrary to
the report of the Task Force on National/District Synod Relations);
and